Alpinist calling it quits

kirra wrote:I placed an order for 4 current & back issues and just received notice of them being shipped. Seems to me that at least subscribers could be allowed some sort of same compensation via these issues. They could be re-sold to offset some of the lost subscription advances ~.02 Tony you have also omitted in your remark that a number of folks probably exist that have an opinion (and don't appreciate getting ripped) but decide not to become involved here. I acknowledge the quality insight offered yet agree with PR. Bitch-slapping folks into humility and fear of speaking out against loosing their money is imo not acceptable, and hense the words were deleted yet the implications still remain

May have an opinion. Do you think PR's name calling is appropriate? What do you think of his writing style? Is it superior to Dougald's?

Dougald explained his remark and edited it to clarify. I think most people get it now. They don;t ahve to agree with him, but does it require name-calling attacks? I have noted that other people on the forum seem capable of discussing things and making actual counter points without the insults.

PRRose wrote: I dunno--sounds like socialism to me. And you approve?

Good morning to you sir! Was that supposed to be funny?

Or does your confusion of the difference between Charity (which is voluntary) and Socialism (which is compulsary) remain intact?

I don't approve of how things appear to stand right now, but it does seem to me there is a charitable history there.

Tony Bubb wrote:Do you think PR's name calling is appropriate? What do you think of his writing style? Is it superior to Dougald's? Dougald explained his remark and edited it to clarify.

Tony - PR has his own style and so does DM. Two different folks with two different styles and two entirely different formats i.e. forums vs. editorial stories

I don't want to get into this kind of a debate here, nor will I judge PR's curt language as this is his style, nor will I debate the reasons why DM deleted (or edited) certain details of his post as this is his option. I can only assume that he didn't care to be further involved or accused of picking sides either way

Tony Bubb wrote:but it does seem to me there is a charitable history there.

charity of the past imo has nothing to do with being "forced" to look beyond present (and future) or current obligations

kirra wrote: charity of the past imo has nothing to do with being "forced" to look beyond present (and future) or current obligations

You are getting 2 different things confused. That was a response to Peter Rose's question about socialism and has little to do with anything else. It was a question of if I thought that the publisher did in *the past* was right. And I do... present situation notwithstanding.

Tony ~ *hug* I'm not confused, great ~ let's move on :)

Tony Bubb wrote: Good morning to you sir! Was that supposed to be funny?

Yes. Sorry if it was over your head.

Good to see Jed talking some sense in here. "Asinine" is the best word to describe the "OMG they're stealing my money!" complaints.

Many businesses use a 3rd party company to handle billing anyways (even if it's transparent to the customer), so it's entirely likely that the billing company was going right ahead with the order processing right up until the moment when their contract was canceled by the magazine.

It's a business (built on a shoddy foundation) that failed, and they owe you nothing. Period.

Strangely enough, a good friend of mine worked at Alpinist for a while in Jackson before moving out to Portland to work for the recently-bankrupt-then-purchased-by-Horny Toad-clothing-company Nau. Nau went out of business in exactly the same manner: no warning, no slowing down of operations, no nothing. One day everything appeared fine and the next they locked the doors on their stores and laid off almost everybody. It's just the way it goes sometimes. When your investor(s) bail on you and the cash runs out it's a race to pay off your debts and close up shop.

Peter Franzen wrote:and they owe you nothing. Period.

I know I'll probably get sh*t for stirring the pot here but this may be easier for you to say when you yourself didn't loose any dough no..? - or did you..

kirra wrote: I know I'll probably get sh*t for stirring the pot here but this may be easier for you to say when you yourself didn't loose any dough no..? - or did you..

You need to look at it from a business standpoint. First you pay off the credit cards and loans, pay the balance on the rent/utilities at the office, pay contributors (if possible), pay off the printer, the warehouse, the billing company, the distribution company, and any other sub-contractors that you owe money to, and then after all of that's done you worry about the subscribers.

I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is. Making a few dozen readers happy is just not likely at the top of their priorities right now.

Peter Franzen wrote:Good to see Jed talking some sense in here. "Asinine" is the best word to describe the "OMG they're stealing my money!" complaints. Many businesses use a 3rd party company to handle billing anyways (even if it's transparent to the customer), so it's entirely likely that the billing company was going right ahead with the order processing right up until the moment when their contract was canceled by the magazine. It's a business (built on a shoddy foundation) that failed, and they owe you nothing. Period.

Well, which is it...

a public service for which you ought to be damned glad that you had the benefit of its largesse, even if they took your money with a promise that won't be fulfilled?

a cold-blooded business venture and caveat emptor prevails?

You think Jed nails it with the first one but you invoke the second.

Jed, I can see a lot of this, but you're mis-characterizing what some of us are saying -- you can't expect patrons of a business that pay for future business to not ask about what they paid for.

If he was running a non-profit & charitable organization, he should have sought contributions as such.

I don't think anyone here is talking about the people that worked for Alpinist in order to make a quality product.

Jed Pointer wrote: They operated at a loss. What part of that confuses you?

I have known people who took it as a point of pride that they make good on all debts incurred by their businesses--whether or not they were protected by a liability shield. None of them had the wherewithal of Marc Ewing, either, yet they nonetheless stood for personal responsibility.

Does Alpinist have to make their suppliers and subscriber's whole? Probably not, assuming it operated as a liability-limited entity. However, your--and Peter Franzen's--approach that it's stupid or asinine to raise the question of whether an entity should operate honorably and ethically is actually the position that should be ridiculed.

Peter Franzen wrote:You need to look at it from a business standpoint. First you pay off the credit cards and loans, pay the balance on the rent/utilities at the office, pay contributors (if possible), pay off the printer, the warehouse, the billing company, the distribution company, and any other sub-contractors that you owe money to, and then after all of that's done you worry about the subscribers. I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is. Making a few dozen readers happy is just not likely at the top of their priorities right now.

Peter I did look at it that way and from my earlier post I thought I explained. I understand how the *law* works however, I don't agree with the law nor the way that the cookie *may be* crumbling

as I think I also mentioned prior, I do not know all of the exact details within Alpinest, so I cannot judge. All I can say is that if I had-had the opportunity - I would pay the folks first who I believe would stand to take a bigger hit than pay other businesses i.e. my office rent to a realitor. That's just my opinion i.e. individuals take a harder hit on financial loss than another business who could simply write it off against their taxes

Jed Pointer wrote: They operated at a loss. What part of that confuses you?

what perhaps is confusing subscribers is that they didn't know this... and perhaps if they did they might not have sent in for a subscription.

Would you subscribe to a magazine if you thought someday they would not be able to deliver it..?

kirra wrote: Would you subscribe to a magazine if you thought someday they would not be able to deliver it..?

Do you want Rock And Ice or Climbing. It is your call now. No sense in asking for anything else. (Do they come with red and blue covers, respectively?) We have a 2-party system here, so don't waste your vote!

Now, in all seriousness, as to where I stand morally, clearly, with the side of Personal Responsibility. If the owner of the business has any money- he should find a way to get subscription dollars back into subscriber's hands. Let's see what happens.

We should probably just ask for the money back from the Access Fund...no? They could pull off a couple of the fancy new hangers from your favorite route and recycle them for cash so they can help refund the money for your scrip...They didn't work for their donation right? It was just your money given to them anyway. But don't come bitchin' here after you take a screamer cuz that bolt is missing!!!

Jed Pointer wrote:I'm sure all but the simpler among us know what the business ought to do. Go add some wisdom to a wiki page or something.

well you sure manned up with this one jed :)~

Try not to get mad on this one... Perhaps if they had charged LESS they would have had more subscribers, granted they would have had to change the layout. The cost of Alpinist always made it more of a 'book store read' than something to buy.
In simple economic terms, their shelf price may have discouraged many a potential reader (read buyer).

Jed Pointer wrote: What bothers me in this particular case is what the subscribers ought to do - and IMO, the answer is not to openly slander and whine about your money or what you believe the Alpinist did with it. They haven't even said they are or are not going to offer refunds - though they probably won't. They never made any money to begin with, yet worked hard to produce something that added a lot to the community for several years. They also donated a lot of cash they didn't make. Their presense was a net gain for everyone who climbs. Reducing them to "just" a business entity who owes you or doesn't owe you something as a part of some business contract law is, as I said, asinine and selfish.

I agree with you on this.
My wife had renewed my subscription a little while ago. So, I guess we're out some money.
Oh well. Shit happens.
It's too bad they didn't make but it I'm not going to say anything bad about them.

Jed Pointer wrote:I'm sure all but the simpler among us know what the business ought to do. Go add some wisdom to a wiki page or something. What bothers me in this particular case is what the subscribers ought to do - and IMO, the answer is not to openly slander and whine about your money or what you believe the Alpinist did with it. They haven't even said they are or are not going to offer refunds - though they probably won't. They never made any money to begin with, yet worked hard to produce something that added a lot to the community for several years. They also donated a lot of cash they didn't make. Their presense was a net gain for everyone who climbs. Reducing them to "just" a business entity who owes you or doesn't owe you something as a part of some business contract law is, as I said, asinine and selfish.

Get a fricken' clue--Alpinist was a business, not a charity. Donating cash they didn't make is laudable? Maybe not to someone with an unpaid bill or an unfulfilled subscription. By the way, unless they were organized as a C corporation, contributions were essentially contributions from the owners to the AF.

Jed Pointer wrote:If a 100 bucks hurts you that badly, stay a little later this week and boil some extra fries to cover it.

Classy. {Added} It's always better to put the boot to the the guy who works hard for his money then, say, the millionaire (many times over) publisher.

Alpinist shouldn't have been donating 20k to the Access fund.

I don't think losing a prepaid subscription is going to put anyone out on the street. It's too bad the focus here has changed from a great magazine to complaining about losing a little money.