--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > Not that devious and certainly not illegal, > > > > > > no not illegal, > > > > > > > unethical or immoral. > > > > > > That's debateable. > > > > Only in your eyes. Feel free to chat with the owners of bookstores > > or with the compilers of the best-seller lists over the issue. I > > know that bookstore owners don't care either way since a saleis a > > sale, and I'm pretty sure that the scenario I presented, where the > > purchase was already planned, would satisfy the book-sales list > > people as well. > > Booksellers are in favor of whatever sells books.
I am sure they are. What is the relevance? The issue is best-seller list compliers. I assume they have some standards to reduce deceptive ploys that makes things seem to be "better" than they are. Like bulk sales. But maybe they are whores of the industry and have not standards. > This was a marketing strategy, a way to catch > people's attention. They could have bought a > full-page ad in the New York Times touting the > book that might also have created a buzz but been > much more expensive. > > As long as the figures weren't artificially > inflated but just concentrated in a shorter time > span, I can't see what was wrong with it. Well its a matter of degree. Should a 1000 book bulk sale be counted? No. Should four months of "normal" sales be counted in one month? And compared to other books' "normal sales". No. Not in my book (nice pun,huh. :) ) I think thats deceptive. You may differ.I may draw the line higher than you. I fail to see the difference, in substance -- though I do in degree -- bewteen this and Enron (and any number of other corrupt companies). Per your logic, I doubt you can see what was wrong with Enron booking next years earnings this year to inflate the stock price. They weren't artificially inflating earnings just concentrated them in a shorter time span. To create positive buzz on the street. They could have bought a full-page ad in the New York Times touting their achievements that might also have created a buzz but been much more expensive. So, hail Andy Fastow. Jai Jeff Skilling. It relates to the TMO ethics. "Hey, a little fudging won't kill anyone. And its for Heaven on Earth and World Peace,right?! Lets go for it." But some perspective. I am not saying what Spraig did was a major crime of the century. But its hiding stuff. Transparency, straight-forwrdness, candor and honesty in book sales, financial reporting, political positions, economic indicators, scientific research and relationships are good things. Better than spinning, deception, slight of hand, severe parsing, optical illusions, fast talking salesmen, pressure tactics, and reporting someting that is "not there" as if it were. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
