On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:16:14 -0500, < Stu > wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:05:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
> -->
> -->"< Stu >" > wrote in message
> -->> -->
> -->> -->Magazines of all types are fighting for the life. Shutting down to
> -->> start
> -->> -->over makes no sense.
> -->> -->
> -->>
> -->> Companies do it all the time
> -->
> -->Name a couple of magazines that stopped publishing and then re-started.
> -->Sure companies do it but they have a different customer base and different
> -->business model. Once that subscriber list is gone, they are gone.
> -->
> -->Half the advertising, half the features, twice the price. Subscribe now!
> -->
>
> Sorry Ed but I already went through that dance with Blake. Look for the post.

i'd switch from dancing to singing if i were you.

blake

Dan Abel wrote:

>>> the whole thing looking to a larger reader base after the re-launch.
>> Magazines of all types are fighting for the life. Shutting down to start
>> over makes no sense.
>
> I agree, but then again, whoever thinks it has to make sense? Coke
> dropped their old Coke and brought out a new one. They said the old one
> was dead and was gone for good. Then they brought it back.


That was an interesting marketing phenomenon. In an effort to boost
sales in a business where gaining a small increase in the market can
reap huge profits, they aimed at a piece of the market from their major
rival, Pepsi. They went around and did blind taste tests to come up with
a more popular taste, and people picked the one that tasted more like
Pepsi. So they called that New Coke. All of a sudden, people insisted
that they preferred the old Coke, so they resurrected it as Classic and
sales rose. Strange.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> James Silverton wrote:
>
> > Have you seen the prices of magazines in book stores? It's had to
> > imagine people buying them except perhaps for airplane reading.
>
>
> It doesn't seem that long ago that I used to pick up a wide variety of
> magazines, usually for $1.25- $1.95. Now they are $6-8. The dramatic
> rise is relatively recent. We get shafted on exchange rates here. For
> years the Canadian and American dollars were relatively close and there
> was one price.

I guess I'm showing my age. I remember when they were always exactly
equal. The Canadians pegged their currency to the US currency.

[oops, Wiki says I lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_dollar

]

I guess I remember when they *did* peg it, at US$.925 per Canadian
dollar, in 1960, when I was still in grade school.

I grew up 150 miles from Canada, and my city was the nearest major
shopping for many Canadians. When it was back to school time, there
were lots of Canadian license plates in the parking lots of the big
shopping centers.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> I guess I'm showing my age. I remember when they were always exactly
> equal. The Canadians pegged their currency to the US currency.
>
> [oops, Wiki says I lie:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_dollar
>
> ]
>
> I guess I remember when they *did* peg it, at US$.925 per Canadian
> dollar, in 1960, when I was still in grade school.
>
> I grew up 150 miles from Canada, and my city was the nearest major
> shopping for many Canadians. When it was back to school time, there
> were lots of Canadian license plates in the parking lots of the big
> shopping centers.


During the 60s it fluctuated near par, sometimes over a $US and
sometimes under. I live about 15 miles from the border and we use to
cross to shop for better prices and better selection. Most of the bars
and restaurants near the border accepted Canadian money at par. When our
dollar dropped under $0.85 they stopped that. When it was under 0.70 is
wasn't worth the trip for us, but Americans started coming over here. A
lot of things are the same price. CDs, computers, programs, jeans etc.
are usually the same price. Even when out dollar was under 70 cents US
most produce was the same price, so there were no bargains on that
stuff. Dairy products, even imported cheeses tend to be a lot less.


I remember one time in 1966 <?> my mother gave me $25 to get a pair of
penny loafers. Our dollar was about $1.10 at the time. I took the bus to
Niagara Falls, walked over the bridge, got a pair of Thom McCan penny
loafers, a pair of Levi jeans and a shirt, and I had enough left over to
get a hamburger and a beer. I was only 16. The drinking age here was 21,
but was 18 in NY, and we never had any problems being served. Now the
drinking age here is 19 and 21 in NY, so the American kids spend their
allowance in our bars.

James Silverton wrote:
> Nancy wrote on Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:34:49 -0400:

>> I don't find magazines to be expensive, for the most part. Between
>> $10 and 20 for a year doesn't seem like a lot to me,
>> considering it's mailed to my door. No wonder they have so
>> many ads, the subscription price doesn't cover the shipping, I
>> don't think.
>
> Have you seen the prices of magazines in book stores? It's had to
> imagine people buying them except perhaps for airplane reading.

I would not normally buy magazines from the newsstand. If
I like it, I subscribe to it. As you say, only in an airport or maybe
once in a blue moon something will catch my eye.

nancy

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-07, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> I don't find magazines to be expensive, for the most part. Between
>> $10 and 20 for a year doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering
>> it's mailed to my door. No wonder they have so many ads, the
>> subscription price doesn't cover the shipping, I don't think.
>
> That may be the case, but I never subscribed. Too many periodicals
> start repeating after a few years, so I just bought what I wanted at
> better newstands. They have a few great ones in the SFBA. Literally
> hundreds of titles.

Yeah, I miss the newsstands in the city. Still, buying by the
issue, yes, magazines are very expensive.

> dozen mags for under $20. Besides, the internet is right here at my
> fingertips and it is what is really killing hard print. Ask any
> newspaper.

I'm one of those dinosaurs, I love getting my newspapers and
my magazines to read, not online.

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> That was an interesting marketing phenomenon. In an effort to boost
> sales in a business where gaining a small increase in the market can
> reap huge profits, they aimed at a piece of the market from their major
> rival, Pepsi. They went around and did blind taste tests to come up with
> a more popular taste, and people picked the one that tasted more like
> Pepsi. So they called that New Coke. All of a sudden, people insisted
> that they preferred the old Coke, so they resurrected it as Classic and
> sales rose. Strange.

It wasn't that strange, at least in hindsight -

The "Pepsi challenge" side by side taste comparisons used tiny
servings, and with tiny servings most folks go for the sweeter of
the two options in blind tests.

But the way many folks actually drink sodas is in servings the
size of a 12 floz can or larger. In the US cans are 12 floz, bottles
come in half liter for 6-packs, single 20 floz bottles at the corner
store, and the larger 24 floz bottles. Those plus the 2 liter size
and every once in a while I size 1 liter or 3 liter sizes. By the time
you get to the bottom of a larger serving the extra sweetness cloys
and the sourness of the older Coke formula wins at that.

If the "Pepsi challenge" had been to drink a 12 floz serving of a
sweeter soda and a 12 floz serving of a sourer soda the old Coke
would have won. No one *did* that side by side comparison so
they learned about the effect after the fact.

Try it for yourself. Do a shot glass of Coke and Pepsi side by side,
then a 2 floz pair, then a 4 floz pair, then an 8 floz pair, then a 12
floz pair. Unless you know in advance about the sweetness versus
sourness effect in advance it is very likely you'll like the sweeter
one at the small sample size and the sourer one at the large sample
size.

Magazines - The market evolves. Eventually all magazines but
National Geographic bites the dust. Sometimes it's a magazine we
have never heard of. Sometimes it's an old friend like Gourmet or
Food and Wine.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message ...
| notbob wrote:
| > On 2009-10-07, Nancy Young > wrote:
| >
| >> I don't find magazines to be expensive, for the most part. Between
| >> $10 and 20 for a year doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering
| >> it's mailed to my door. No wonder they have so many ads, the
| >> subscription price doesn't cover the shipping, I don't think.
| >
| > That may be the case, but I never subscribed. Too many periodicals
| > start repeating after a few years, so I just bought what I wanted at
| > better newstands. They have a few great ones in the SFBA. Literally
| > hundreds of titles.
|
| Yeah, I miss the newsstands in the city. Still, buying by the
| issue, yes, magazines are very expensive.
|
| > dozen mags for under $20. Besides, the internet is right here at my
| > fingertips and it is what is really killing hard print. Ask any
| > newspaper.
|
| I'm one of those dinosaurs, I love getting my newspapers and
| my magazines to read, not online.

There is no comparison with anything else we have. The
pleasure of spreading out a newspaper and spending the first
few minutes of one's morning existence, perhaps with some
tea or coffee, is beyond any realm of electronic inducement.
I can scritch the Cat when she appears, sip the tea, talk to those
who are boorish enough to call during this ritual, and read the
meanderings of humanity through the tactile medium of newsprint
and absorb, without the obnoxiously brilliant glare, the stories of
the day. Great commentary, long live Paper.

pavane

pavane said...

>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>| notbob wrote:
>| > On 2009-10-07, Nancy Young > wrote:
>| >
>| >> I don't find magazines to be expensive, for the most part. Between
>| >> $10 and 20 for a year doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering
>| >> it's mailed to my door. No wonder they have so many ads, the
>| >> subscription price doesn't cover the shipping, I don't think.
>| >
>| > That may be the case, but I never subscribed. Too many periodicals
>| > start repeating after a few years, so I just bought what I wanted at
>| > better newstands. They have a few great ones in the SFBA. Literally
>| > hundreds of titles.
>|
>| Yeah, I miss the newsstands in the city. Still, buying by the
>| issue, yes, magazines are very expensive.
>|
>| > dozen mags for under $20. Besides, the internet is right here at my
>| > fingertips and it is what is really killing hard print. Ask any
>| > newspaper.
>|
>| I'm one of those dinosaurs, I love getting my newspapers and
>| my magazines to read, not online.
>
> There is no comparison with anything else we have. The
> pleasure of spreading out a newspaper and spending the first
> few minutes of one's morning existence, perhaps with some
> tea or coffee, is beyond any realm of electronic inducement.
> I can scritch the Cat when she appears, sip the tea, talk to those
> who are boorish enough to call during this ritual, and read the
> meanderings of humanity through the tactile medium of newsprint
> and absorb, without the obnoxiously brilliant glare, the stories of
> the day. Great commentary, long live Paper.
>
> pavane


My folks got the daily paper and a few other magazines but since before I
was born they subscribed to National Geographic.

When it arrived, after they went through it, we got to read it and pick a
favorite story each and read it out loud, which served as part of our
education. It taught us pronunciation, diction and definition, historic and
current events and an appreciation of nature, science and photography.

We probably had 50+ years of the issues when our folks passed on. Even
though the issues had fallen into some measure of obsolescence, we
regretted seeing them go, to the town library. We laughingly figured that
that must've made their day! NOT!

Andy

pavane wrote:
> | I'm one of those dinosaurs, I love getting my newspapers and
> | my magazines to read, not online.
>
> There is no comparison with anything else we have. The
> pleasure of spreading out a newspaper and spending the first
> few minutes of one's morning existence, perhaps with some
> tea or coffee, is beyond any realm of electronic inducement.
> I can scritch the Cat when she appears, sip the tea, talk to those
> who are boorish enough to call during this ritual, and read the
> meanderings of humanity through the tactile medium of newsprint
> and absorb, without the obnoxiously brilliant glare, the stories of
> the day. Great commentary, long live Paper.

I subscribe to a morning paper, but I don't read it right away. I go
online and get the latest major stories and do online crosswords and
other word games. Later on in the morning I go out for a coffee and take
the paper with me, read in in a coffee shop and do the crossword.

pavane wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> I'm one of those dinosaurs, I love getting my newspapers and
>> my magazines to read, not online.
>
> There is no comparison with anything else we have. The
> pleasure of spreading out a newspaper and spending the first
> few minutes of one's morning existence, perhaps with some
> tea or coffee, is beyond any realm of electronic inducement.
> I can scritch the Cat when she appears, sip the tea, talk to those
> who are boorish enough to call during this ritual, and read the
> meanderings of humanity through the tactile medium of newsprint
> and absorb, without the obnoxiously brilliant glare, the stories of
> the day. Great commentary, long live Paper.

I enjoyed reading that. Even on the computer.

nancy

Stu > wrote:

>Thought I'd grab the two Gourmet cook books off of amazon.ca before they're all
>gone. Picked up the Gourmet 2006 - 1000 recipe cookbook and Gourmet today
>Aug.2009 - 1000 recipes.

Why? The magazine is folding, not the publishing imprint.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"James Silverton" > wrote:

>Have you seen the prices of magazines in book stores? It's had to
>imagine people buying them except perhaps for airplane reading.

Hardly. I buy 2-3 magazines a month from the bookstore. The catch is
that I generally only buy 1-2 issues of a given title annually, so
it's actually cheaper to just buy the issue I want directly rather
than subscribe.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

notbob > wrote:

>Besides, the internet is right here at my
>fingertips and it is what is really killing hard print.

In the same way Denny's wiped out the local diner, the internet is
wiping out hard print by selling crap extremely cheap.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons said...

> In the same way Denny's wiped out the local diner, the internet is
> wiping out hard print by selling crap extremely cheap.


Who would by crap extremely cheap?

Andy

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:34:57 -0500, Andy > wrote:

>Derek Lyons said...
>
>> In the same way Denny's wiped out the local diner, the internet is
>> wiping out hard print by selling crap extremely cheap.
>
>
>Who would by crap extremely cheap?

Some people will buy anything if it is cheap enough and if it is free -
woo hoo.

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-10-07, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
> > I don't find magazines to be expensive, for the most part. Between
> > $10 and 20 for a year doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering
> > it's mailed to my door. No wonder they have so many ads, the
> > subscription price doesn't cover the shipping, I don't think.
>
> That may be the case, but I never subscribed. Too many periodicals
> start repeating after a few years, so I just bought what I wanted at
> better newstands.

Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your competition,
milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it down. Now
you've got the whole market, but just need to print one magazine, and
have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff from each, and
ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you are just looking
for money?

When I was a kid, we had two major daily papers in my hometown. They
were different from each other. Sure, when the President was
assassinated, that would be the headline article in both, but most of
the time, there was a difference between them, other then the fact that
one came out in the morning and one in the evening. Eventually, I grew
up and left home. I was back visiting my father some years later, and
my father was lamenting that he still subscribed to both papers, but he
didn't know why. I didn't understand that, until I read them. They
were identical! They were also woefully thin. The only difference was
that one came in the morning and one in the evening.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:20:32 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

>Eating Well, too, I believe.

What was it before?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:20:32 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Eating Well, too, I believe.
>
> What was it before?
>
Same name.

--
Jean B.

Dan Abel wrote:

>
> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your competition,
> milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it down. Now
> you've got the whole market, but just need to print one magazine, and
> have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff from each, and
> ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you are just looking
> for money?


That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it is
that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and the
need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep prices
down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices high.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your competition,
> > milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it down. Now
> > you've got the whole market, but just need to print one magazine, and
> > have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff from each, and
> > ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you are just looking
> > for money?
>
> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it is
> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and the
> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep prices
> down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices high.

Would it bother you if Warren Buffet bought the rights
to Gourmet magazine and shipped the whole thing to China?

In addition to the magazine their could be, like,
frozen food dinners.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your competition,
>> milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it down. Now
>> you've got the whole market, but just need to print one magazine, and
>> have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff from each, and
>> ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you are just looking
>> for money?
>
> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it is
> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and the
> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep prices
> down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices high.

y'all didn't tell me that *modern bride* also bit the dust in this
bloodletting. that's a real blow.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

-->On Sun 11 Oct 2009 07:18:08a, blake murphy told us...
-->
-->> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
-->>
-->>> Dan Abel wrote:
-->>>
-->>>>
-->>>> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your
-->>>> competition, milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it
-->>>> down. Now you've got the whole market, but just need to print one
-->>>> magazine, and have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff
-->>>> from each, and ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you
-->>>> are just looking for money?
-->>>
-->>> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it is
-->>> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and the
-->>> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep
-->>> prices down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices
-->>> high.
-->>
-->> y'all didn't tell me that *modern bride* also bit the dust in this
-->> bloodletting. that's a real blow.
-->>
-->> your pal,
-->> blake
-->>
-->
-->OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))


I hear he turns heads in his strapless which is decorated with the finest
Swarowsky crystals, and made from the finest organza fabric.

Just saying, I heard it somewhere ;o)

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 11 Oct 2009 07:18:08a, blake murphy told us...
>
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your
>>>> competition, milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it
>>>> down. Now you've got the whole market, but just need to print one
>>>> magazine, and have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff
>>>> from each, and ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you
>>>> are just looking for money?
>>>
>>> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it is
>>> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and the
>>> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep
>>> prices down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices
>>> high.
>>
>> y'all didn't tell me that *modern bride* also bit the dust in this
>> bloodletting. that's a real blow.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
> OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))

there will be a cash bar (with a suitable kickback) at the service, but i
haven't gotten any further than that.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:48:01 -0500, SCP wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
> -->On Sun 11 Oct 2009 07:18:08a, blake murphy told us...
> -->
> -->> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
> -->>
> -->>> Dan Abel wrote:
> -->>>
> -->>>>
> -->>>> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your
> -->>>> competition, milk the product for what it's worth, and then close it
> -->>>> down. Now you've got the whole market, but just need to print one
> -->>>> magazine, and have one set of staff. You can choose the best staff
> -->>>> from each, and ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if you
> -->>>> are just looking for money?
> -->>>
> -->>> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it is
> -->>> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and the
> -->>> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep
> -->>> prices down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices
> -->>> high.
> -->>
> -->> y'all didn't tell me that *modern bride* also bit the dust in this
> -->> bloodletting. that's a real blow.
> -->>
> -->> your pal,
> -->> blake
> -->>
> -->
> -->OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))
>
> I hear he turns heads in his strapless which is decorated with the finest
> Swarowsky crystals, and made from the finest organza fabric.
>
> Just saying, I heard it somewhere ;o)

i'm said to be quite fetching in my camisole.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:48:01 -0500, SCP wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>> -->On Sun 11 Oct 2009 07:18:08a, blake murphy told us...
>> -->
>> -->> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>> -->>
>> -->>> Dan Abel wrote:
>> -->>>
>> -->>>>
>> -->>>> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your
>> -->>>> competition, milk the product for what it's worth, and then close
>> it
>> -->>>> down. Now you've got the whole market, but just need to print one
>> -->>>> magazine, and have one set of staff. You can choose the best
>> staff
>> -->>>> from each, and ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if
>> you
>> -->>>> are just looking for money?
>> -->>>
>> -->>> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it
>> is
>> -->>> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and
>> the
>> -->>> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep
>> -->>> prices down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices
>> -->>> high.
>> -->>
>> -->> y'all didn't tell me that *modern bride* also bit the dust in this
>> -->> bloodletting. that's a real blow.
>> -->>
>> -->> your pal,
>> -->> blake
>> -->>
>> -->
>> -->OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))
>>
>> I hear he turns heads in his strapless which is decorated with the finest
>> Swarowsky crystals, and made from the finest organza fabric.
>>
>> Just saying, I heard it somewhere ;o)
>
> i'm said to be quite fetching in my camisole.
>

I can attest to this. Wowsa.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:48:01 -0500, SCP > wrote:

>I hear he turns heads in his strapless which is decorated with the finest
>Swarowsky crystals, and made from the finest organza fabric.
>
>Just saying, I heard it somewhere ;o)

I want to know how you know about Swarowsky crystals...



--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:09:55 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>>
>> OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))
>
>there will be a cash bar (with a suitable kickback) at the service, but i
>haven't gotten any further than that.
>
Don't forget the photo booth.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:37:33 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:48:01 -0500, SCP wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> -->On Sun 11 Oct 2009 07:18:08a, blake murphy told us...
>>> -->
>>> -->> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:54 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> -->>
>>> -->>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>> -->>>
>>> -->>>>
>>> -->>>> Seems like your typical US business practice. Buy out your
>>> -->>>> competition, milk the product for what it's worth, and then close
>>> it
>>> -->>>> down. Now you've got the whole market, but just need to print one
>>> -->>>> magazine, and have one set of staff. You can choose the best
>>> staff
>>> -->>>> from each, and ditch the rest. What's not to like about this, if
>>> you
>>> -->>>> are just looking for money?
>>> -->>>
>>> -->>> That's pretty much the way things work. The ironic thing about it
>>> is
>>> -->>> that the businessmen who do that preach about free enterprise and
>>> the
>>> -->>> need for competition to make operations things efficient and keep
>>> -->>> prices down. Then they buy up the competition to keep their prices
>>> -->>> high.
>>> -->>
>>> -->> y'all didn't tell me that *modern bride* also bit the dust in this
>>> -->> bloodletting. that's a real blow.
>>> -->>
>>> -->> your pal,
>>> -->> blake
>>> -->>
>>> -->
>>> -->OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))
>>>
>>> I hear he turns heads in his strapless which is decorated with the finest
>>> Swarowsky crystals, and made from the finest organza fabric.
>>>
>>> Just saying, I heard it somewhere ;o)
>>
>> i'm said to be quite fetching in my camisole.
>>
>
>I can attest to this. Wowsa.
>
I didn't know you could actually *see* with a whale mask on. Huh.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:13:35 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:09:55 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:25:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OMG, Blake, however will you plan your wedding? :-))
>>
>>there will be a cash bar (with a suitable kickback) at the service, but i
>>haven't gotten any further than that.
>>
> Don't forget the photo booth.

good idea. i'll open it up after the bar has been open a couple hours.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:37:57 -0700, sf > wrote:

-->On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:48:01 -0500, SCP > wrote:
-->
-->>I hear he turns heads in his strapless which is decorated with the finest
-->>Swarowsky crystals, and made from the finest organza fabric.
-->>
-->>Just saying, I heard it somewhere ;o)
-->
-->I want to know how you know about Swarowsky crystals...
-->
-->

Like I said, I heard it somewhere ;o)