This old man is possibly naive and has been wifely certified as stupid.
That said, I just always naively and stupidly assumed that "Dave's Garden" was a nifty resource on the Internet that had been set up by some guy named Dave and that people just signed on because ... well, because of all those reasons that you all have expressed far better than I can.
Mekos: you said it for you; and you said for me; and I bet you said it for others here as well. DG is our lifeline. It's that simple and that stark.
But I ain't so old that I'se stupid. Even running a blog means paying cash to someone for occupying time on their server. Still, I always just figured that Dave was using the subscription fees to cover those costs and that the ad income covered those who did not pay subscription fees, allowing the to have access to the Plant Files, etc.
Well, now I see that I am old enough that I IS stupid.
Dave built this garden, probably along the lines that I mentioned above.
But, probably like so many, I was so naive that when I joined, I thought that Dave just ran this site on subscription and ad revenue and that the "Ubers" were just folk like D19G66 or Ihateflowers or Potagere or other usernames you can imagine (and I profoundly apologize if I have inadvertently used real usernames), who were just doing this fine work in their off time.
It actually never occurred to me that this was a commercial enterprise. It never occurred to me that Dave (or, especially, Melody et al.) were PAID!
Well, but of course. It is a commercial enterprise.
I was never aware that Dave had sold it in the first place.
I'd say, in response to that, folks, that he valued us at whatever price and employment guarantee he got at the time.
Think about that. What were we worth to him when he first sold us?
I also thought that the Admins and "Ubers" were just folk who had been with us some long tine, the Admins having access to the Website's control mechanisms.
If they are paid staff, then I believe they owe us as much as we owe them.
I am a Buddhist. As such, I have become concerned about the level of Christian assertiveness that has been allowed in the fora. I don't want you to pray for me, nor do I want you to expect that I will "pray" for you. AND as America's issues with the rest of the world are increasingly defined --- on both sides -- -as religious issues, do I wish to be Iumped with either "side".
I also want my grand-children to be able to access this wonderful site But that is not going to happen if Fundamentalist Christianity is continued to have its free run of DG.
What has worked so far is an "Old South" attitude on DG: Mostly everything goes, so long as you are willing to tolerate Christian supremacy and to step into the street whenever a Christian attitude comes walking doen the pike.
I'd like a site where being Christian is OK;
where being Mormon is OK;
where being Muslim is OK;
where being Buddhist is OK;
Where being whatever was just fine and I did not have to hear your prayers to whomever with more respect that you will give to my chants to whomever.
Can InternetBrands handle that?
I'm not sure that Dave was even ready to do so.
But, for the most part, he was a Christian who let the rest of us live;
so I'd walk with him long before I'd stay in a site that gives Christians precedence over the rest of us
And over OUR family values
