<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.inthebuff.co.uk/buff06" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>InTheBuff - General Naturist FAQ - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.inthebuff.co.uk/buff06/taxonomy/term/56</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;General Naturist FAQ&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>I don&#039;t get it</title>
 <link>http://www.inthebuff.co.uk/buff06/node/3932#comment-6409</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;As far as I&#039;m concerned: If you have a user name on here, then you&#039;ve &#039;joined.&#039;  You may be participating for free, but you&#039;re still a member.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If you&#039;ve paid the premium for the additional services and to support the site, then that makes you a &#039;supporting member&#039; rather than just a plain old &#039;member.&#039;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I just hope nobody here is taking a holier-than-thou attitude just because they&#039;ve paid their subscriptions.  Non-paying members still make their own contribution to the site in the discussion and other content that they bring to the forums.  If we kicked out all of the non-paying members, the place would get very boring very quickly.  We wouldn&#039;t see many fresh faces, that&#039;s for sure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What we have is a perfectly working forum site that anyone can join and access free of charge.  The site also has some premium features which are used as an incentive to get people to subscribe and generate some revenue.  ITB isn&#039;t run for profit, and the admins don&#039;t get paid for the time that they put in.  Prior to introducing these charges, the site was costing Will an arm and a leg to run out of his own pocket, and that&#039;s just not fair, is it?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:53:20 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>DaveT</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 6409 at http://www.inthebuff.co.uk/buff06</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
