Unless they take down the offer, which is still visible on the website, they might.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Premium memberships showing ads
- Thread starter Quagmire
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, that can happen. I have seen ads for gay dating sites if I support equal rights for everyone. That is not me.
I would ask that the new owners do what is reasonable and necessary to sustain some thing that we all appreciate to one extent or another. Prancing around saying something akin to "You bought it without reading the fine print so screw you!" seems a bit self defeating.
(I might very well change my mind if they attempt to monetize my ignore list.)
Did you notice that they used the exact same images as the Russian women want to meet you ads? I suspect collusion going on.
Of course, I've seen neither since the beginning of hostilities...
The fine print stated (and still states) for rhe life of the account. No prancing involved
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yea, I pointed that out.
One was listed as 60 years old and another at 20. Same woman, same picture.
Talk about fountain of youth!
So THERE!
It really is a nice forum ...
It is, i wouldn't like to dump it for a silly reason
There's zero indication/communication that those who own RF are having financial issues.And, assuming that it was not "a good business decision," are you willing to see the forums shut down in deference to your expectations? Seriously?
Organizations that I'm aware of that have offered life memberships (same kind of thing) have honored that commitment and contract when they discovered it was not cost-effective. In some cases the cost for life members went up or in some cases ended for new people but in no case did they casually ignore a contract entered into in good faith.
Casually violating contracts to me is ethically and morally wrong. I won't be a party and support unethical and perhaps illegal actions.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I'm very flirtatious by nature. When I first started dating my current gf, she would get upset when I did it. I said 'Look at it this way. I can have all these women if I want, but I choose you!"Sounds like my husband who is 86 and very sociable. One day in the super market a woman in front of him in the checkout was holding two floral bouquets. He jokingly asked if one was for him. After she checked out she gave him one of the bouquets. I got all excited when he came to the door with flowers until I heard the story.
Now she doesn't get jealous. I think she hopes that I will go off with someone else.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Here's my advice. Look at the price for a lifetime membership and divide it by the monthly fee. That's how many months your membership has to last to make the lifetime fee worth it. If you think that the company, and your interest in it, will last at least that long, go for it. Otherwise don't.
It's unreasonable to expect these things to survive a change of owner.
- I have not claimed that those who own RF are having financial issues.
- Nor have I suggested the the current owners of RF have or should casually ignore a contract.
- And I certainly did not ask that you be a party and support unethical and perhaps illegal actions.
But does Premium Membership mean a lifetime of no ads?
Whether or not they're having financial issues isn't the point. For the owners this is strictly a business, so of course they're going to need to turn a profit.
Ad revenue is usually the main source of income for a site like this, but recurring membership payments and donations also help pay the bills.
The problem with a "Lifetime Membership" deal like the one installed by the previous owners is that it preemptively screws any subsequent owners in that anyone with one of these memberships obviously isn't going to sign up for a recurring membership fee of top of it, and also probably won't feel as inclined to donate to the site since they've already contributed a sizable chunk.
It's a great deal for the previous owners since they've already been payed in full for a service that they're no longer providing, but it kind of sucks for the new guys.
Whether or not it's cost-effective isn't the issue. Whether or not it's fair for the current owners to have to provide a service that someone else got paid for is the issue.
In this case we're talking about a contract that SOMEONE ELSE entered into in good faith. Your contract, if you bought your lifetime membership before Aug. 2018, is with @Rex and @Brent W.
Whether or not that obligation carries over to the new owners is up for grabs. The impression I get is that the new owners weren't even fully aware of what a premium membership entailed.
Breaking news!
I just communicated with the owners (telepathically),
& they said that the needed to raise money for a new
program to improve posts here. Mostly, it's paying
me to limit mine to 10 per month.
I just communicated with the owners (telepathically),
& they said that the needed to raise money for a new
program to improve posts here. Mostly, it's paying
me to limit mine to 10 per month.
They're going to pay you for not posting?
Think of the improved average quality!
btw guys, I thought this would be a perfect time to announce my own latest offering to the members:
For a limited time only I'm currently selling Next-Lifetime Premium Memberships to all of our members. Money back guarantee if it turns out there is no afterlife (bitcoin accepted).
For a limited time only I'm currently selling Next-Lifetime Premium Memberships to all of our members. Money back guarantee if it turns out there is no afterlife (bitcoin accepted).
I am assuming that they [new owners] were made aware of this during purchase negotiations.
I wouldn't assume that.