[acqq]

Google Sites won't forbid you the access once you're not on your university.

For case of stopping providing the services, take as the example Geocites -- it took a decade for them to stop hosting, and the only victim were the long forgotten and deserted pages. On another side, there is still content I uploaded on Tripod at least ten years ago, for which I forgot my passwords years ago.

If years of free hosting are not enough for you, then you have to pay for the hosting and have a bit more control. But even the hosting site to which you pay can go out of business. Nothing is forever, you just have to maintain your online content if you want to have control over it.

I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd. I admit I don't know why most users use it.

With enough ideas or usage scenarios, maybe somebody will make something better!

[jasonlotito]

First, the advantages for people were already described. Scribd provided them with things that they found valuable. You dismissed these things because they weren't valuable for you. When you say:

> I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd.

You really mean "I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd for me." If you meant what you originally said, your being purposefully obtuse.

Indeed, in rereading you original comment, you were simply dismissive, and all the alternatives you provided lacked the specific feature sets he was looking for.

> With enough ideas or usage scenarios, maybe somebody will make something better!

Yeah, another document host. Scribd2.

[acqq]

The rest of my line that you omitted when quoting the start of it was:

"I admit I don't know why most users use it."

Note: most users. If you can't answer, please restrain from trying to make a conflict. The responses like "embed," or "ease of upload," or "read statistics" are actually useful! I'd really like more of such answers, but your answer is both unusable and insulting. When I commented on some of the features mentioned it's only because I want to hear something "yes feature A is easy but there is also the advantage B" etc.

The argument that you can post to scribd and worry less that it will become inaccessible compared to when you upload it to some other site is what scribd themselves already proved to be false.

[jasonlotito]

There are two things going on. Either you are a not a native English speaker, in which case, I can assume you've misunderstood something I've said, or your are trolling. I'll assume the former.

Within the context of this thread, you initially responded to a post, and, whether intending to or not, you dismissed his reasons for liking Scribd. ilamont gave you three reasons. For example, embedding was one answer. In your immediate reply to my last post, you said:

> The responses like "embed," or "ease of upload," or "read statistics" are actually useful!

However, in your reply to ilamont, you said:

> Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you.

Now, maybe your intention wasn't to be dismissive. Unfortunately, what you said here is dismissive. So, forgive me if I seem like I'm trying to 'make a conflict', but going by your replies, you did seem to start off that way.

Next, you originally said:

> You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)?

This was again in response to ilamont.

My reply, which basically was in response to this particular part, was

> To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.

This was in response to your comment regarding ilamont, as well as the original poster, and encompassed both users. Basically, that Scribd provided both of these people with features they liked, and features you were seemed to dismiss as unimportant.

Anyways, my remark was merely to state that they did, in fact, use a free service to upload their documents too. Your suggestion of using another free service is missing the point: they had already done that. It's fairly circular: A free hosting service did something you don't like? Maybe you should have tried a free hosting service.

Our replies quickly degenerated until we reach now, where you are assuming I'm trying to create a conflict. I assure you, I am not.

Now, I want to address this:

> The argument that you can post to scribd and worry less that it will become inaccessible compared to when you upload it to some other site is what scribd themselves already proved to be false.

In hindsight this is true. However, prior to this "proof", it wasn't true.

And maybe this is where our confusion came about. I was speaking within the context of the original poster, as well as the parent commenter. It seemed you were only looking forward, though, this wasn't far from clear in your original reply.

Regardless, it's a silly debate. I apologize if I seemed to be trying to start and argument with you. That was not my intention. However, what you said doesn't follow logically. I can only assume this is because what you wrote and what you meant aren't the same. I blame the internet, and it's failings to communicate effectively.

That being said, if you are a native born English speaker, you're probably nothing more than an obtuse troll.

[acqq]

> It's fairly circular: A free hosting service did something you don't like? Maybe you should have tried a free hosting service.

What you failed to recognize was that the nature of the scribd service and the web hosting services I suggested was always fundamentally different and that was visible even then when you claim that they were "the same."

There's no free web hosting service that demands visitors to register to deliver them the web content(!) Scribd always immediately made your original material inaccessible and counted on visitors to sign up just to deliver it to them! So scribd was so obviously worse from the start. After the current development everybody sees that (you write "In hindsight this is true. However, prior to this "proof", it wasn't true.") but even if you wasn't able to see the difference "in context of the original poster" that doesn't give you the rights to behave how you did.

I don't blame the interent, I blame you for making insults instead of trying to argument, but I still won't call you names, even if you deserve it for continuing to do what you do in the post I reply. No, I am not the native speaker but I still believe that's irrelevant to your bad behavior, except if you claim that subtle hints to somebody not being native speaker additionally annoy you, that still doesn't show you in better light.