>>How is it okay that the first update folks get on their
>well
>>spent money ...
>
>But anyway - I hear you. I don't think it is a huge deal as
>its pretty much expected. Didn't think it would be pushed back
>SEVEN FUCKING MONTHS but at least they're being conservative
>now after the initial failure.
>
>But yea. When I first saw the September release date I was
>like "no fucking chance" which is generally my reaction to any
>initial release date so I wasn't shocked when that date came
>and went and will be happy to get a new De La album whenever
>it arrives.
>
>That said I only spent like $50 on their crowd fund so it's
>not like I broke the bank. If you spent more, or spent the
>same but just need that money more, I feel you.

My argument is not about the money spent but about the principle.

If someone NEEDS their cash, then spending it on a crowdfunded album is one of the worst ways they could waste it. And, need is relative.

A billionaire could in most instances "afford" to spend a million on something, but, whether that money could have been better spent on something more beneficial than a De La album that gets pushed back several months could dictate his "need" our desire for said money to be returned and redirected into something with a more timely return on investment.

Only folks with new money or no money act like any amount of money wasted is "nothing" or not a big deal.

And that's not to say folks aren't free to do with their cheese add they choose.