GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-08 > 0870447941
From: <>
Subject: Re: Genealogical Publishing Scams
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:05:41 -0400
<>
<>
<>
<>
<> <>
<> <>
<> <>
<> <>
Reply-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.116.48.115
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Xref: paladin.american.edu soc.genealogy.medieval:15989
You need two posts to reply to my one? Are you upset or something?
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> You repeat the same tired litany, to the effect, "small press runs mean
> high prices to the consumer and low wages for the writers" [but say
> nothing about profits to the publishing firm] <snip>
Do I really need to? How can there be high profits in small press runs?
You can't sell many books at a $1000 a copy. If you don't think I have
enough knowledge of the publishing business to address this subject,
that's fine with me. Changing your mind, obviously, is not exactly your
long suit, so I will make no further effort to do so and will leave you
with your fantasies. I guess you need them.
> Do you now understand ---- after having been hit in the head with the
> proverbial two-by-four --- that the issue is Genealogical Publishing
> Scams --- and how to avoid falling for them?
You flatter your debating skills. No one else is likely to. And, of
course, I have addressed your point every time you have brought it up.
(See above.) I didn't give you the answer you wanted, but that's not my
fault. You'll have to blame the truth for that.
The point I'M making is that you made an assertion and--despite constant
carping on your part that all assertions must be backed up with evidence
and authority--you did not do so. That makes you a hypocrite. It was,
typically, a personal attack. That makes you a bully. You have, despite
four requests, refused to address that point. That makes you a coward.
You have supplied us with vast piles of evidence regarding your
Queeg-like character, but you have none--that you are willing to
share--that I am intellectually dishonest.
So I repeat, for the fifth time, what evidence and authority have you
for the following statement?:
>
> John Steele Gordon ---- probably deliberately ---- ignores the clear
> meaning of my statement.
You made the statement. Now defend it, apologize for it, or continue to
squirm pathetically in front of the entire newsgroup, revealed for what
you are: a bully, a coward, and a hypocrite. I suspect they're enjoying
themselves at your discomfort. Are you?
John Steele Gordon
This thread: