I've concluded you are a troll, a plant, an idiot or retired with too much time on your hands and like to argue. Poor spouse...you repeat yourself ad nauseum with little to add, challenging us for who knows what reason.  Your point is taken, it's quite simple and direct.  Take our points and shove it.  Tired of seeing your blathering.  

of course they can, and it's their call.  That isn't the point.  

No one has said "get it free" at all.  Need to read closer...its their model changing midstream, and undermining the "old model" trying to move into a paywall model - won't work.  Its a "forum" for a reason...your challenging everyone isn't adding anything. 

wow, I sit corrected.  You concur with a valid point.  Which I also agree with and did not consider.  Possible pathway forward for SA.

those that stay, stay...piffy ain't ya'?   What's your beef with our dissenting comments exactly?  Lot of energy spent by you...and your value add isn't much, so you must enjoy typing your rebuttals.  Meanwhile, I and others wish to make SA understand our perspectives more.  SA, not you...

how much does SA actually put out?  Very little based on what I've seen.  Instead it's their authors who puts out most content.  And they will loathe losing readers.   As u point out, nothing wrong with wanting to make money, or using a pay wall.  But they'll lose much of what made people come to them, as will the authors.  The pay wall model I don't think will work well to support what they've built.  I also subscribe to wsj, a couple other sites.  SA isn't meeting my threshold for paying without the significant comment section, which will absolutely decrease with a paywall.

Precisely...Its hard to retract away from the model they fostered at this point.  Better find another model.

I appreciate SA;s desire to make revenue - but they're going to lose what makes them valuable.  Should try a different model.