Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 4947943" data-attributes="member: 73683">Really?  <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wall/20090921" target="_blank">This one</a>?  <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wall/20090701" target="_blank">This one</a>?  <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wall/20090624" target="_blank">This one</a>?  <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wall/20090513" target="_blank">This one</a>?  <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wall/20090325" target="_blank">This one</a>?  I could go on, but you get the point. You see, in that example you were paying for the service originally.  When they remove part of the service, the responsible thing to do is to reevaluate whether that service continues to be worth the money you pay for it.The problem is, you weren't paying for what WotC was providing you with.  You can't reevaluate whether that service continues to be worth it, because you weren't part of any paid service to begin with.  The idea of a service being worth something necessitates that you give up something to obtain it.  You give up nothing to use their free service.  If you were a D&D Insider customer and they suddenly removed a feature you were previously paying for, then you might have legitimate cause for concern.And, apparently, we've left the realm of civil discourse.  That's kind of a shame.</blockquote>