How many people call themselves an 'author'...
Krus T. Olfard
publisher to pay the writer money so that the publisher can publish the
writing?
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
SluttyFox
"Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF5A0B5...@204.127.204.17...
> ...when NO publishers consider what they have written valuable enough for
a
> publisher to pay the writer money so that the publisher can publish the
> writing?
>
Word is an instant author. Silly isn't it?
I don't consider someone an author unless I can buy the book in any major
bookstore. Otherwise they are a writer that can't get published.
SluttyFox
If you can't get laid on NYE....you need help
Ray Gordon
> Word is an instant author. Silly isn't it?
> I don't consider someone an author unless I can buy the book in any major
> bookstore. Otherwise they are a writer that can't get published.
So in other words, the internet's greatest feature -- a level playing field
for writers -- is made irrelevant by the public seeking the social proof
that comes with having been picked up by a publisher, even if the
publisher's decision to publish was politically or economically motivated.
What a narrow view that trashes many independent authors on the net.
Krus T. Olfard
news:TIXBd.18559$152.11043@trndny01:
>> Welcome to the internet, where anyone that types out a few pages
>> using MS Word is an instant author. Silly isn't it?
>> I don't consider someone an author unless I can buy the book in any
>> major bookstore. Otherwise they are a writer that can't get
>> published.
>
> So in other words, the internet's greatest feature -- a level playing
> field for writers -- is made irrelevant by the public seeking the
> social proof that comes with having been picked up by a publisher,
> even if the publisher's decision to publish was politically or
> economically motivated.
Every publisher's decision to publish is 'economically motivated'. They are
in the business to make money! If a book has a reasonable economic
potential there will be some publisher who will publish it, regardless of
the politics of the work so that is definitely a straw man arguement.
If no one will pay the writer to publish their writing then no publisher
thinks it has any value to enough people to make it worth the cost and
effort of publishing. While that does not ALWAYS mean that the writing is
worthless it is certainly an indicator to be considered.
> What a narrow view that trashes many independent authors on the net.
No, it doesn't trash them, it just puts their writing into proper
perspective.
I have written and 'published' a few e-books in my 10 years on internet but
I certainly do not believe that doing so makes me an 'author'. That those
e-books had value to a certain number of people is indicated by the fact
that I sold them and even with a money-back guarantee I never had to return
anyone's money. Again, that does not make me an 'author', it just means
that I know something that some people found to be of value to them.
Ray Gordon
>>> using MS Word is an instant author. Silly isn't it?
>>> I don't consider someone an author unless I can buy the book in any
>>> major bookstore. Otherwise they are a writer that can't get
>>> published.
>>
>> So in other words, the internet's greatest feature -- a level playing
>> field for writers -- is made irrelevant by the public seeking the
>> social proof that comes with having been picked up by a publisher,
>> even if the publisher's decision to publish was politically or
>> economically motivated.
>
> Every publisher's decision to publish is 'economically motivated'. They
> are
> in the business to make money! If a book has a reasonable economic
> potential there will be some publisher who will publish it, regardless of
> the politics of the work so that is definitely a straw man arguement.
Actually that is not true at all, as history shows over and over again.
Many men's books never got published because publishers were afraid of
offending women. One book that claimed NFL games were fixed was scutted
entirely after it had hit the shelves. Still other books that had messages
someone in power didn't want read do not get published, and the fact is,
publishers overlook good works all the time.
> If no one will pay the writer to publish their writing then no publisher
> thinks it has any value to enough people to make it worth the cost and
> effort of publishing.
A publisher's judgment, of course, is far from perfect, but would have to be
for your argument to have any credibility.
>While that does not ALWAYS mean that the writing is
> worthless it is certainly an indicator to be considered.
It's social proof, which works great on idiot sheep like the public. That,
however, is a sociological argument that has nothing to do with merit.
>> What a narrow view that trashes many independent authors on the net.
>
> No, it doesn't trash them, it just puts their writing into proper
> perspective.
>
> I have written and 'published' a few e-books in my 10 years on internet
> but
> I certainly do not believe that doing so makes me an 'author'. That those
> e-books had value to a certain number of people is indicated by the fact
> that I sold them and even with a money-back guarantee I never had to
> return
> anyone's money. Again, that does not make me an 'author', it just means
> that I know something that some people found to be of value to them.
Gee, now you sell e-books...on what topic?
Krus T. Olfard
>>>> Welcome to the internet, where anyone that types out a few pages
>>>> using MS Word is an instant author. Silly isn't it?
>>>> I don't consider someone an author unless I can buy the book in any
>>>> major bookstore. Otherwise they are a writer that can't get
>>>> published.
>>>
>>> So in other words, the internet's greatest feature -- a level
>>> playing field for writers -- is made irrelevant by the public
>>> seeking the social proof that comes with having been picked up by a
>>> publisher, even if the publisher's decision to publish was
>>> politically or economically motivated.
>>
>> Every publisher's decision to publish is 'economically motivated'.
>> They are
>> in the business to make money! If a book has a reasonable economic
>> potential there will be some publisher who will publish it,
>> regardless of the politics of the work so that is definitely a straw
>> man arguement.
>
> Actually that is not true at all, as history shows over and over
> again. Many men's books never got published because publishers were
> afraid of offending women. One book that claimed NFL games were fixed
> was scutted entirely after it had hit the shelves. Still other books
> that had messages someone in power didn't want read do not get
> published, and the fact is, publishers overlook good works all the
> time.
You can find exceptions to almost any statement but those exceptions do not
invalidate the statements general validity. Most works turned down by
publishers, both mainstream and otherwise, are works that have virtually no
economic potential. You can deny it forever if it makes you feel better
about not finding a publisher for your 'writing' but that does not make it
untrue.
>> If no one will pay the writer to publish their writing then no
>> publisher thinks it has any value to enough people to make it worth
>> the cost and effort of publishing.
>
> A publisher's judgment, of course, is far from perfect, but would have
> to be for your argument to have any credibility.
Not at all. Of course, everyone's judgement, especially yours, is far from
perfect. However, publishers know the market far better than you do so I
would certainly trust their judgement more than yours about that market,
especially since I have read some of your 'writing'.
>>While that does not ALWAYS mean that the writing is
>> worthless it is certainly an indicator to be considered.
>
> It's social proof, which works great on idiot sheep like the public.
> That, however, is a sociological argument that has nothing to do with
> merit.
You can consider it 'social proof' having 'nothing to do with merit'
if it makes you feel better about not finding a publisher for your
'writing' but that does not change the fact that it is certainly reasonable
to consider most writing that cannot find a real publisher to be a very
little worth or at least of worth to such a limited market that it can be
considered worthless by most of the marketplace.
>>> What a narrow view that trashes many independent authors on the net.
>>
>> No, it doesn't trash them, it just puts their writing into proper
>> perspective.
>>
>> I have written and 'published' a few e-books in my 10 years on
>> internet but
>> I certainly do not believe that doing so makes me an 'author'. That
>> those e-books had value to a certain number of people is indicated by
>> the fact that I sold them and even with a money-back guarantee I
>> never had to return
>> anyone's money. Again, that does not make me an 'author', it just
>> means that I know something that some people found to be of value to
>> them.
>
> Gee, now you sell e-books...on what topic?
Read again for content, ray - I said "I have written and 'published'...". I
am not at this time selling any e-books. As for topics, they have ranged
from aspects of photography to a French postcard price guide. And I have
offered a money-back guarantee with every one of them and never once has it
been used - so much for your theory about money-back guarantees. Don't get
your panties in a bunch - not one of the e-books I've sold had anything to
do with seduction - so much for your claim that I sell seduction materials.
I have apparently written and 'published' e-books on more topics than you
have but I certainly am not arrogant enough nor desperate enough to need to
call myself an 'author'.
The stuff I wrote was aimed at a very limited marketplace. I would have
been amazed if any real publisher had indicated an interest it publishing
it, happy but amazed.
Ray Gordon
>> again. Many men's books never got published because publishers were
>> afraid of offending women. One book that claimed NFL games were fixed
>> was scutted entirely after it had hit the shelves. Still other books
>> that had messages someone in power didn't want read do not get
>> published, and the fact is, publishers overlook good works all the
>> time.
>
> You can find exceptions to almost any statement but those exceptions do
> not
> invalidate the statements general validity. Most works turned down by
> publishers, both mainstream and otherwise, are works that have virtually
> no
> economic potential. You can deny it forever if it makes you feel better
> about not finding a publisher for your 'writing' but that does not make it
> untrue.
You are speaking to an antiquated model and even there your argument didn't
fly, because a publisher had to be *certain* (as possible) that there was
economic value, or they'd be stuck with books.
Today's writers have print-on-demand technology, and you wouldn't even know
if the publisher was "major" or not. Do people check every publisher's
revenue before they buy a book? Many books on bookstores come from small,
independent houses or are self-published. It is not impossible to get books
in stores these days.
I have gone a step further and eliminated the middleman, while making a
large amount of my material free, and giving lifetime participation to my
readers via "buy the author." The things you speak off smack of an old way
to rip people off by having them purchase several editions of a book, or
"updates," etc. Most of what I do with my books simply cannot be done with
print books.
I doubt most e-book authors would be concerned with the social proof aspect
unless their goal is to get a fat publishing contract. Most writers just
like to write regardless of economics.
>> A publisher's judgment, of course, is far from perfect, but would have
>> to be for your argument to have any credibility.
>
> Not at all. Of course, everyone's judgement, especially yours, is far from
> perfect.
Do you realize that you are behaving exactly the way a domestic abuser would
by trying to bully me?
Oh yeah, you lack any courage in the real world so you need to get your
bravery anonymously. That's also a sign of a rapist, and it's not surprising
you'd be kind to NLP methods. You can only fool people as long as nothing
about you is known, yet you want the same credibility as someone who is open
to scrutiny.
>However, publishers know the market far better than you do
Actually, booksellers know the market the best.
>so I
> would certainly trust their judgement more than yours about that market,
> especially since I have read some of your 'writing'.
Your personal axe to grind, and the many lies you have spoken about me,
speak for themselves and are not relevant to the public at large.
Only a coward would try to use NLP to seduce a woman, and making yourself
known would run the risk of the women you mindraped learning of what you
did.
>>>While that does not ALWAYS mean that the writing is
>>> worthless it is certainly an indicator to be considered.
>>
>> It's social proof, which works great on idiot sheep like the public.
>> That, however, is a sociological argument that has nothing to do with
>> merit.
>
> You can consider it 'social proof' having 'nothing to do with merit'
> if it makes you feel better about not finding a publisher for your
> 'writing'
Where was it established that I couldn't find a publisher for my writing
again? You're talking out of your ass.
Come to think of it, I have several literary agents interested in some
reality-based fiction that I'm writing, just off a one-page query.
You are confusing writing with the business of publishing; the two are not
even close to similar.
>but that does not change the fact that it is certainly reasonable
> to consider most writing that cannot find a real publisher to be a very
> little worth or at least of worth to such a limited market that it can be
> considered worthless by most of the marketplace.
One doesn't follow from the other, since they are indicative of different
things. You are literally judging a book by its cover, and that is one of
the most flawed arguments on this earth, especially as the era of
e-publishing dawns on us.
The old rules simply no longer apply.
Then of course there is the other flaw of judging a creative work
commercially, which is truly pathetic.
>>>> What a narrow view that trashes many independent authors on the net.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't trash them, it just puts their writing into proper
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> I have written and 'published' a few e-books in my 10 years on
>>> internet but
>>> I certainly do not believe that doing so makes me an 'author'. That
>>> those e-books had value to a certain number of people is indicated by
>>> the fact that I sold them and even with a money-back guarantee I
>>> never had to return
>>> anyone's money. Again, that does not make me an 'author', it just
>>> means that I know something that some people found to be of value to
>>> them.
>>
>> Gee, now you sell e-books...on what topic?
>
> Read again for content, ray - I said "I have written and 'published'...".
> I
> am not at this time selling any e-books. As for topics, they have ranged
> from aspects of photography to a French postcard price guide. And I have
> offered a money-back guarantee with every one of them and never once has
> it
> been used - so much for your theory about money-back guarantees.
I could show a posting where someone proposed doing this to a business
rival. Another post here talked about abusing search engines to run up
someone's pay-per-click bill.
This is a Wild-West style environment.
>Don't get
> your panties in a bunch -
You can leave your panty fixation out of this, fag.
>not one of the e-books I've sold had anything to
> do with seduction - so much for your claim that I sell seduction
> materials.
I claim you shill for (or are a flunky) for those who do. You flame me here
as if it were your job.
> I have apparently written and 'published' e-books on more topics than you
> have but I certainly am not arrogant enough nor desperate enough to need
> to
> call myself an 'author'.
Not my concern.
> The stuff I wrote was aimed at a very limited marketplace. I would have
> been amazed if any real publisher had indicated an interest it publishing
> it, happy but amazed.
Not relevant to general-interest men's books then.
aardvark9084
> "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in
> news:TIXBd.18559$152.11043@trndny01:
>
> >> Welcome to the internet, where anyone that types out a few pages
> >> using MS Word is an instant author. Silly isn't it?
> >> I don't consider someone an author unless I can buy the book in any
> >> major bookstore. Otherwise they are a writer that can't get
> >> published.
> >
> > So in other words, the internet's greatest feature -- a level playing
> > field for writers -- is made irrelevant by the public seeking the
> > social proof that comes with having been picked up by a publisher,
> > even if the publisher's decision to publish was politically or
> > economically motivated.
>
> Every publisher's decision to publish is 'economically motivated'. They
are
> in the business to make money! If a book has a reasonable economic
> potential there will be some publisher who will publish it, regardless of
> the politics of the work so that is definitely a straw man arguement.
>
> If no one will pay the writer to publish their writing then no publisher
> thinks it has any value to enough people to make it worth the cost and
> effort of publishing. While that does not ALWAYS mean that the writing is
> worthless it is certainly an indicator to be considered.
it floors me how ray can't see his own blatant hypocricy in his blathering
spews.
he goes on about the "greed" of others that doesn't exist but demands a
billion dollars for basically nothing sellable of his own tripe.
aardvark
Krus T. Olfard
>>> Actually that is not true at all, as history shows over and over
>>> again. Many men's books never got published because publishers were
>>> afraid of offending women. One book that claimed NFL games were
>>> fixed was scutted entirely after it had hit the shelves. Still
>>> other books that had messages someone in power didn't want read do
>>> not get published, and the fact is, publishers overlook good works
>>> all the time.
>>
>> You can find exceptions to almost any statement but those exceptions
>> do not
>> invalidate the statements general validity. Most works turned down by
>> publishers, both mainstream and otherwise, are works that have
>> virtually no
>> economic potential. You can deny it forever if it makes you feel
>> better about not finding a publisher for your 'writing' but that does
>> not make it untrue.
>
> You are speaking to an antiquated model and even there your argument
> didn't fly, because a publisher had to be *certain* (as possible) that
> there was economic value, or they'd be stuck with books.
That is still the way that major publishers work so it's not antiquated.
You probably wish it was though.
> Today's writers have print-on-demand technology, and you wouldn't even
> know if the publisher was "major" or not.
Of course you would. Well, maybe you wouldn't.
> Do people check every
> publisher's revenue before they buy a book? Many books on bookstores
> come from small, independent houses or are self-published. It is not
> impossible to get books in stores these days.
Almost no self-published books end up in bookstores. Yours certainly
haven't.
> I have gone a step further and eliminated the middleman, while making
> a large amount of my material free, and giving lifetime participation
> to my readers via "buy the author." The things you speak off smack of
> an old way to rip people off by having them purchase several editions
> of a book, or "updates," etc. Most of what I do with my books simply
> cannot be done with print books.
Ah yes, the 'old way' was to rip off people by offering a money-back
guarantee - I see the value of your logic here.
> I doubt most e-book authors would be concerned with the social proof
> aspect unless their goal is to get a fat publishing contract. Most
> writers just like to write regardless of economics.
Perhaps "most writers just like to write" but most of them also like to
receive recognition for their work and in the real world that recognition
comes from being published by a major publisher.
>>> A publisher's judgment, of course, is far from perfect, but would
>>> have to be for your argument to have any credibility.
>>
>> Not at all. Of course, everyone's judgement, especially yours, is far
>> from perfect.
>
> Do you realize that you are behaving exactly the way a domestic abuser
> would by trying to bully me?
Oh what debating skills you have! Instead of showing examples of how your
judgement is good you accuse me of acting like a domestic abuser. Sorry,
ray, but I would NEVER be in a 'domestic' relationship with you so don't
get your hopes up.
> Oh yeah, you lack any courage in the real world so you need to get
> your bravery anonymously. That's also a sign of a rapist, and it's not
> surprising you'd be kind to NLP methods. You can only fool people as
> long as nothing about you is known, yet you want the same credibility
> as someone who is open to scrutiny.
What an amazing paragraph that is. You accuse me of being a coward. You
accuse me of being a rapist. You accuse me of supporting NLP methods. You
accuse me of trying to fool people. You accuse me of trying to gain
credibility from the people here.
What a spew that was, ray, what a pathetic spew. It just makes it obvious
to me that you do not have any valid arguements about what I've posted and
rather than try to debate the ideas you make unfounded (except perhaps in
your rather odd mind) accusations.
You're a 'master d'bator', ray.
>>However, publishers know the market far better than you do
>
> Actually, booksellers know the market the best.
And still undoubtedly better than you do.
>>so I
>> would certainly trust their judgement more than yours about that
>> market, especially since I have read some of your 'writing'.
>
> Your personal axe to grind, and the many lies you have spoken about
> me, speak for themselves and are not relevant to the public at large.
Lies? I've lied about you?
I will admit that my comments to and about you speak for themselves. Anyone
viewing them who has been in this newsgroup for any period of time will
certainly judge those comments on their merit. They really will, ray.
> Only a coward would try to use NLP to seduce a woman, and making
> yourself known would run the risk of the women you mindraped learning
> of what you did.
And once again he accuses me of being a rapist. How many times does that
make now, ray? A lot.
But just out of curiosity, what makes you think that I use NLP? From my
understanding, NLP will pretty much work for anyone. When I post any advice
I usually preface it with the comment that I do what works for me and that
it may not work for others. Does that sound like I use NLP?
Well, maybe it does to you as you are not known for reading for content.
>>>>While that does not ALWAYS mean that the writing is
>>>> worthless it is certainly an indicator to be considered.
>>>
>>> It's social proof, which works great on idiot sheep like the public.
>>> That, however, is a sociological argument that has nothing to do
>>> with merit.
>>
>> You can consider it 'social proof' having 'nothing to do with merit'
>> if it makes you feel better about not finding a publisher for your
>> 'writing'
>
> Where was it established that I couldn't find a publisher for my
> writing again? You're talking out of your ass.
Because any writer who could find a publisher and make $$ would do so. And
keep your fixation on my ass out of this.
> Come to think of it, I have several literary agents interested in some
> reality-based fiction that I'm writing, just off a one-page query.
Oh my... I just closed my eyes and tried to imagine some 'reality-based
fiction' that you would write.
> You are confusing writing with the business of publishing; the two are
> not even close to similar.
Yet the two are very intimately intertwined,you know, like two people
making love... oh wait, you probably don't know about that.
>>but that does not change the fact that it is certainly reasonable
>> to consider most writing that cannot find a real publisher to be a
>> very little worth or at least of worth to such a limited market that
>> it can be considered worthless by most of the marketplace.
>
> One doesn't follow from the other, since they are indicative of
> different things. You are literally judging a book by its cover, and
> that is one of the most flawed arguments on this earth, especially as
> the era of e-publishing dawns on us.
The two certainly do go together. No where is there any indication of
judging a book by it's cover - that's why I believe that you have a real
problem reading for content - if you do not have that problem then you
obviously ignore the content in an effort to promote whatever your current
agenda is.
> The old rules simply no longer apply.
The economics of the publishing marketplace will always apply as long as
there are writers and publishers.
> Then of course there is the other flaw of judging a creative work
> commercially, which is truly pathetic.
Just because a creative work has been judged a commercial failure does not
mean that it has any value at all - in fact, if a creative work has been a
commercial failure it usually has NO value.
Of course there are exceptions but I seriously doubt that your writing is
one of them, from what I've seen of it.
>>>>> What a narrow view that trashes many independent authors on the
>>>>> net.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't trash them, it just puts their writing into proper
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I have written and 'published' a few e-books in my 10 years on
>>>> internet but
>>>> I certainly do not believe that doing so makes me an 'author'. That
>>>> those e-books had value to a certain number of people is indicated
>>>> by the fact that I sold them and even with a money-back guarantee I
>>>> never had to return
>>>> anyone's money. Again, that does not make me an 'author', it just
>>>> means that I know something that some people found to be of value
>>>> to them.
>>>
>>> Gee, now you sell e-books...on what topic?
>>
>> Read again for content, ray - I said "I have written and
>> 'published'...". I
>> am not at this time selling any e-books. As for topics, they have
>> ranged from aspects of photography to a French postcard price guide.
>> And I have offered a money-back guarantee with every one of them and
>> never once has it
>> been used - so much for your theory about money-back guarantees.
>
> I could show a posting where someone proposed doing this to a business
> rival. Another post here talked about abusing search engines to run
> up someone's pay-per-click bill.
Uh... doing WHAT to a business rival? What does any of that have to do with
what I posted? As far as I know you do not advertize in any place that has
a pay-per-click. Talk about reading for content... pathetic.
> This is a Wild-West style environment.
yessir, marshall dillon! Or do you fancy yourself Butch Cassidy?
>>Don't get
>> your panties in a bunch -
>
> You can leave your panty fixation out of this, fag.
And now you've accused me of being a fag as well as a shill and a rapist
and a sexual abuser and of selling seduction material. Damn, dismissed
baybee, the list just keeps getting longer.
>>not one of the e-books I've sold had anything to
>> do with seduction - so much for your claim that I sell seduction
>> materials.
>
> I claim you shill for (or are a flunky) for those who do. You flame
> me here as if it were your job.
Ghod, ray, that claim is getting so old it has rust on it. Think of
something new... wait, you did, you just accused me of being a fag. Well, I
do smoke cigarettes but I've never before been accused of being a
cigarette.
>> I have apparently written and 'published' e-books on more topics than
>> you have but I certainly am not arrogant enough nor desperate enough
>> to need to
>> call myself an 'author'.
>
> Not my concern.
>> The stuff I wrote was aimed at a very limited marketplace. I would
>> have been amazed if any real publisher had indicated an interest it
>> publishing it, happy but amazed.
>
> Not relevant to general-interest men's books then.
>
>
>
>
--
KTO, Author! <snicker>