New York Times Co Chairman and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. managed to deflect major shareholder insurrection this year by agreeing to offer two board seats to a dissident investor’s rival slate, where one presumes they might be somewhat more placid than when they were banging on the walls of the Gray Lady. Now it looks like he might be working the same charm on disaffected puzzlers.

At Tuesday’s annual shareholder meeting, one woman who said she was an investor in the company asked why the Times didn’t run a Sudoku puzzle. Such a move, she explained to Sulzberger as he stood before his audience at the lectern, would no doubt be a big boon for circulation.

Here’s Sulzberger’s response:

I know it’s something we’ve looked at but I cannot answer the question as to why we haven’t done it yet. Our puzzle is one of the great puzzles of the world and it continues to be a huge draw for us. But I will certainly make your thoughts known to the puzzle people.

If nothing else, he’s more than assured us that his puzzle people will never be considered “synergies,” and if they were, they could probably hide out in the Sunday acrostic all day long.

And on an endnote, perhaps if the shareholder checked nytimes.com, she might find all manner of Sudoku.

(Photo: Reuters, ‘Father of Sudoku’ Maki Kaji)

The New York Times’ fancy new building on 8th Avenue comes at a cost. First there was the falling glass and other debris, then there was that annoying issue of mice making a home in the skyscraper.

But how’s this for a cost? The New York Times headquarters building is likely to depreciate at a rate of $8 million per quarter, according to its latest earnings release.

What’s $8 million per quarter? Here’s our rough breakdown:

• $2.67 million per month
• $88,889 per day
• $3,704 per hour
• $62 per minute
• $1.03 per second

In other words, the building lost $30 — give or take — while you were reading this post.

The New York Times made its peace with hostile hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners by nominating two members of its rival slate to its board, but a few hundred miles south in Richmond, Virginia, Media General declared war instead.

Media General Chief Executive Marshall Morton stopped just short of challenging Harbinger executive Philip Falcone to a duel, and instead derided the lack of experience of three board members that Harbinger is trying to elect to the company after building up an 18.2 percent stake.

Morton elucidated in an interview with Reuters on Wednesday:

- On why the newspaper publisher and broadcaster has suffered a 61 percent stock drop in the past year: Today’s world is a world where the customer is in charge, not us anymore. Media General was pretty early in figuring out that the customer was platform-independent.

- On what Harbinger might do to help Media General negotiate the tricky newspaper landscape: We have yet to hear any concrete plans as to what they would have us do differently. … I don’t want anyone to think we don’t listen to new ideas. We’re in search of them. (Media General publishes the Richmond Times-Dispatch, as well as the Tampa Tribune, among other papers)

- On why a buyback or special dividend to jumpstart the share price isn’t a hot idea: We’d rather invest that kind of money in new businesses or in revisions to our existing business. … Those are short-term impact kinds of actions that don’t add value to the cashflow stream.

- On Media General’s family control through two classes of stock. What does the family, including Chairman J. Stewart Bryan III (who holds some 80 percent of the B shares) think about the stock price and your strategy? They’re completely on board with us.

- On the bullet-point reasons in his letter about why Harbinger’s board nominees aren’t even fit for digging ditches, let alone directing a company: I have refrained from being combative and negative, but, I mean, at some point we have to respond to what they say about us.

Shall we say “Pistols at dawn?”