|
Post by raoawr on Aug 8, 2006 14:17:18 GMT -5
Send it to me and Pan.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Aug 8, 2006 14:18:43 GMT -5
Hey I put the edition together and wrote stuff and added my own special touches!
But yeah Jacob thought of it. I was in full support of it as soon as I started paying attention in the chat though. I'm still special.
J, yay!
|
|
|
Post by raoawr on Aug 8, 2006 14:20:17 GMT -5
I'm not going to edit it I'm just going to read it. raoawr and I'm the princess or something so I get to read stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Linda Rhaldeen on Aug 8, 2006 14:23:34 GMT -5
Wait, you're doing another issue? The first time you did it, the goal was to be a parody and let everyone have a good laugh, right? And so you did, and everyone lived happily ever after. But if you do another issue, that sends one of two messages: 1) you're preparing another joke and using the same method you already used before, which isn't very good form, or 2) you’re unhappy with the 667er and are making a rival paper to steal away its audience. None of them are particularly positive messages. But anyways, if you’re unhappy with the 667er or want more representation or something, talk to Akbar and I’m sure he’ll be understanding.
|
|
|
Post by raoawr on Aug 8, 2006 14:34:46 GMT -5
Maybe we think 667 needs more papers. The 667er and The 668er appeal to different audiences. It's like the difference between The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Or something. Or the difference between Time and People.
|
|
|
Post by boyonastick on Aug 8, 2006 14:49:02 GMT -5
Exactly. 667 has diversity. We're trying to reach out to underrepresented groups. Plus, competition is good for product quality. We're trying to help the 667er.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Aug 8, 2006 15:58:53 GMT -5
Linda we have many goals and objectives, most of which we haven't figured out yet. When do we get everything together, you'll be the first to know.
Akbar's paper is real and serious and stuff and our paper probably isn't. Akbar tries to be informative each week and we're entertaining. Or something.
|
|
|
Post by raoawr on Aug 8, 2006 16:11:46 GMT -5
We're not just entertaining, we're narcissistic.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Aug 8, 2006 16:45:34 GMT -5
Well.. theres that. I doubt anyone noticed it though because we're subtle.
|
|
|
Post by raoawr on Aug 8, 2006 17:14:21 GMT -5
That another one of our amazing qualities. Thanks for pointing it out!
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Snicket on Aug 9, 2006 10:50:49 GMT -5
I've got a feeling that this new newspaper is going to compete with the 667er in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by raoawr on Aug 9, 2006 10:59:29 GMT -5
I don't get why it's a competition, except for people liking our's better. It's not like we're selling them or anything. And I had something else to say implying that the 668er is better but I forget what. We have some of the same people writing.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Snicket on Aug 9, 2006 13:44:28 GMT -5
I see what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Aug 9, 2006 14:37:37 GMT -5
This paper is better though.
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Aug 11, 2006 0:26:18 GMT -5
Char has a point. It's not like we're "stealing" readers from the 667er. We aren't selling anything. People who like the 667er can read the 667er, people who like the 668er can read the 668er, and those who like both can read both. Easy.
|
|