Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 2615420" data-attributes="member: 33060">Not meaning to be argumentative but, in the first instance, it falls to the designer and publisher to make the case for what they would like to see purchased.  When their rational is abbreviated, it is then, IMO, fair to respond with further inquiry, particularly when the abbreviated rationale appears to run so plainly counter to what may be objectively observed.  This is not a case of the designer or publisher claiming ignorance of how to proceed but rather having proceeded with some rationale.  Looking at that rationale is, then, not "bitching" but invited inquiry and such inquiry as has been made, see supra, has not been limited to "complaining" but rather tasks specific exception to the rationale offered.  Your suggestion is perfectly viable as well but gives the designer/publisher an initial pass that, IMO, is unwarranted or at least not mandatory.On the upset itself, this is, I believe, founded upon -(1) Statements in this forum and others by the publisher they were taking note of suggestions made and those suggestions to a high degree of uniformity looked for some materials that are not included; and(2) The publisher continues to hold hostage future volumes predicate upon the good sales of the initial volume which (one must suppose intentionally) left out many of the most desired articles.  One must then buy less than the best that people were lead to imagine would be presented in order to get in a future volume what they had hoped and supposed would be in the initial volume.  Bait and switch, with the hostage twist, by any other name.</blockquote>

Verification