--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > AND many book buyers depend on these lists to narrow down the list > > of books they will consider buying. > > That's actually a much smaller factor in the > equation. MUCH smaller. And it doesn't kick in > until the book has been on the lists for at least > a few weeks.
And thats your opnion. Fine. I have a different view. > > >One thing you need to bear in mind is that best- > > seller status is not some prize awarded for the > > quality of a book; > > > > I disagree, per above. > > Well, it's not a matter of disagreement; it's a > matter of fact. And certainly nothing you said > above is relevant to this point. Ah. Its FACT. Why didn't you say so. Well if its a FACT, I have no case. Oh, btw, who and what deterimined it a FACT? > You would have a great deal of difficulty finding > anyone knowledgeable about publishing who would > say best-seller lists are a measure of the quality > of the books on them. BZZZZ another STRAWMAN!! I never said they were. .... > > And "ethics" is a bit of a > > strawman. My concern was "deception". > > Er, deception is generally considered unethical. Really? Then many political speeches, half of advertizing, 90% of dating is unethical. Should we line the bastards up and shoot them? > > > To me, "decption" /slight of hand is more objective. It happenend or > > it didn't. Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. ... > I think thats deceptive. You may > differ.I may draw the line higher than you. > > > > > > No, you're just ignorant of how the publishing > > > industry works. > > > > Thats funny. "I think thats deceptive. You may differ.I > > may draw the line higher than you." is an invalid statement because [I am] just ignorant of how the publishing > > industry works." ????????? > > Yes, indeedy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. My values should be based on how [youpercieve] some industry works. Preious. Gosh, I could never make this stuff up. ... > > Um, I said "I fail to see the difference, in substance -- though I > do > > in degree" -- its apple and oranges in degree. I "said" that. But > not > > in its nature, its substance. A deception might be big or small. It > is > > still deception. > > In that sense, all marketing is deception, as I pointed > out. Then you clearly ignorant of many useful marketing practices. > > >Enron's ploy > > > involved other people's investments. People lost > > > their life's savings as a result. Who lost money > > > as a result of Chopra's ploy? > > > > Obviously the book sellers and authors whose book would have been on > > the best seller list had the chopra book campaign not used slight of > > hand practices. > > You're still not getting it (willfully at this point, > I suspect). The booksellers, obviously, wouldn't > have lost any money at all; more likely they'd have > lost money *without* the Chopra campaign. UM Read what I wrote. > > "Obviously the book sellers and authors whose book WOULD have been on the best seller list had the chopra book campaign not used slight of hand practices." You are saying that the publishers of the margianl book that got bumped because of Chopra manuveur mad more money?????? Holy Shit! ------------------------ 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/
