To: Lancey Howard
They're going to lose subscribers over this.
To: mainepatsfan
They're going to lose subscribers over this. I sure hope so.
37 posted on
03/07/2007 3:04:29 PM PST by
Patriotic1
(Dic mihi solum facta, domina - Just the facts, ma'am)
To: mainepatsfan
.
They're going to lose subscribers over thisThe only reason most subscribe is for the swimsuit edition anyway
94 posted on
03/07/2007 3:42:34 PM PST by
Gone_Postal
(Communism works only in Heaven, where they don’t need it, and in Hell, where they’ve already got it.)
To: mainepatsfan
We should be honest over Sports Illustrated. Over the past five years...they have irritated readers more than they have attracted readers. Lets us guess that yes...they lose 8 percent of their readers...and they figure it was worth it (that is environmental lack of economic understanding that makes an illogic choice as such).
A number of publications...from Arizona Highways...to Nat'l Geographic...are "green" today. Most of their articles are written by non-journalist types...you can read the material and tell. So the staffs are taking on environmental science folks and converting over to journalists.
How should we react? Pepper the SI management with questions. First...does the juiced-up Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa put out more green-house gases than then the non-juiced-up guys? Second....can we buy carbon credits via the Packers reservation sales? Third....can we halt Monday night football...to save energy...and just play the game at 2pm on Monday afternoon? Can we shut off the heat to all of the domed facilities in the name of Al Gore? Lastly...can we cut back the number of pages in SI to 16 in the interest of saving the national forests (a true environmental nut would say yes...and help heal a nation)?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson