posted
Ron, I'm sorry to scar your ego, but you should at least be aware that a serious publisher does not request compensation for publishing a book- this is at least an indication that your book is not good enough to be published, there is not enough demand for such a book, etc. There is a reason why a reputable publishing house will not take it- and although your book was "approved" by this company, the fact that you contributed to its costs indicates that their faith in your product is not strong.
quote: I have probably already made back nearly all the money I invested, after only three months on the market. I will know in a week or two.
Called it. And now that your social circle has bought the book, the publisher will quietly put it out of print to save themselves the bother, and move on to the next guy with a great idea. You ain't the first, and you certainly won't be the last. Try factoring in the amount of time you have spent advertising the book, because a real publisher would do that too. Were there any signings? Any ads? Any release party? Any books in stores? Anything? Tell us, I'm actually quite interested to hear how much time you've invested.
Your book has not been reviewed, it is sold from a website that appears to be just shy of 10 years out of fashion- when will you know that you've arrived?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, you are clearly ignorant of the religious book publishing field, yet you still presume to talk authoritatively about it. Are you so totally hateful toward me personally that you just have to find any way you can to discredit me and denounce my work, even if you have to make up virtually everything you say? Why not let other people decide for themselves, instead of setting yourself up as someone qualified to tell others what to think about my book? Obviously you have not read it.
All told, nearly twenty years went into producing my book. It was not the Bible study of a moment. They did ask me if I were willing to attend book signings, and I told them I did not really want to do that. Sounds vaguely idolatrous to me. Why should anyone want my autograph? Why should anyone want anyone's autograph?
And did I not already tell you that Teach Services is doing the marketing? At least you should bother to read everything I said in my last post, before trying to respond to it.
And one more by the way--I have been told by people as far away as Australia and the U.K. that they have ordered copies of my book.
One more FYI: My first science fiction short story was published in Analog in January of 1979. How far back does your knowledge and professional experience in publishing go?
[ April 12, 2009, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, Teach Services subsidized my book, so I only had to pay half the publishing cost.
so, wait, you're bragging/countering about how you had to pay for only half of your vanity publication?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, you are clearly ignorant of the religious book publishing field, yet you still presume to talk authoritatively about it. Are you so totally hateful toward me personally that you just have to find any way you can to discredit me and denounce my work, even if you have to make up virtually everything you say? Why not let other people decide for themselves, instead of setting yourself up as someone qualified to tell others what to think about my book? Obviously you have not read it.
Nor did I say a single thing about it. Way to show your insecurity on that score.
I'm not an authority on vanity publishing, but I am well aware of what it is, and how it works. It's a bit funny your accusing me of trying to establish some sense of false authority. You're the one who wanted to make yourself sound like a published author: "my just published book," and all that. It took me calling BS to find out you're still actually in the hole for the printing costs. Good job- that makes you look smart.
quote: Why should anyone want my autograph?
I don't know... to be able to say that they shook the hand of a legendary ego?
quote: And did I not already tell you that Teach Services is doing the marketing? At least you should bother to read everything I said in my last post, before trying to respond to it.
Oh I read that. And I looked at their website- I would love to know what "marketing" means to them, unless you consider having something show up on Amazon to be marketing. Why no reviews of your book?
quote: And one more by the way--I have been told by people as far away as Australia and the U.K. that they have ordered copies of my book.
Now you've got someone "as far away" as central Europe telling you he won't be buying one- it's the internet in the English speaking world dude, all points are equal.
quote: One more FYI: My first science fiction short story was published in Analog in January of 1979. How far back does your knowledge and professional experience in publishing go?
Well I'm not an old fart like you, but I did read numerous back issues of analog in my esteemed university library. Some of them were good, some of them were bad, but since they published that story a scant 30 years ago, I have to wonder where all those novels you always dreamed of writing have gotten to? You've managed a slim self-published volume about an obscure religious subject (who's abstract, btw, is an invitation to narcolepsy), and that took you twenty years?
I don't know what to say. Devotion? Delusion? Endearing madness? I feel a twinge of sadness that you've had to pull out the big guns, with your analog publication three decades ago- it must hurt.
Link us a copy of your story, why don't you?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Orinoco. That's incredibly harsh. I know Ron's a bizarre guy, and his book sounds... well, I shan't be reading it. And I'm not necessarily defending him.
But the above seems needlessly hurtful. And yes, I do know that Ron says awful things about liberals all the time, but I'm not sure he knows the difference. I think you know better. I hope so, anyway.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the difference- at the moment I'm not really feeling charitable. If no one in his family or social circle ever stopped him and made him look at this, and really examine the silliness and desperation in it, then they have done him a disservice, and that really isn't fair to anyone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But Ron probably isn't going to pay attention, since as far as he's concerned opinions like ours are just hustling the day of judgement that bit closer. Meanwhile, you’re worrying people like me who are thinking about what words like that might do to a more sensitive personality than he is likely to possess.
So, in the end, what I'm saying is - you don't need to stoop.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: This is the kind of parody post I'd expect KoM to make when ridiculing someone's opinion. In fact it's so over the top I'm really having a hard time believing it's a real post.
Parody? Who needs parody? The thing about Christians is that they fill themselves full of straw just breathing, because their beliefs are so utterly contradicted by actual evidence; then when someone points out that, y'know, X is absurd, any number of 'moderates' will pop up to defend the Christians on the grounds that nobody could believe such a strawman. Would you like some threats of violence with your enabling behaviour?
And this post, filled with poorly thought out ideas and prejudice, is why no one here takes anything you have to say on religion seriously, KOM.
In many ways YOU are as much a caricature as Ron is being here. Talking to EITHER one of you about these issues is a waste of time.
I find it highly entertaining that you are far more like him than you could possibly ever realize or admit.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I would bet seriously that no one is thinking about murdering you. You seem pretty harmless, at least to me, holed up there in your little SDA world, writing your books and stuff. Just about my only squawk with any SDA folks is the excessive focus on being vegetarian, fasting, etc. I think sometimes SDA folks can get a little excessive with the dietary purity. Other than that, you don't seem any more dangerous than the average Rush Limbaugh and/or Michael Savage listener.
As far as WMDs in Iraq go, if there HAD been any, they'd
1. have been found already 2. reported so widely that every human with a TV would have heard about it 1000 times over. That's only a slight exaggeration.
That's kind of a foregone conclusion, dude. No Iraqi has been hiding any uranium or anthrax in his/her lower orifice for the last 6 years.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well I'm not an old fart like you, but I did read numerous back issues of analog in my esteemed university library. Some of them were good, some of them were bad, but since they published that story a scant 30 years ago, I have to wonder where all those novels you always dreamed of writing have gotten to? You've managed a slim self-published volume about an obscure religious subject (who's abstract, btw, is an invitation to narcolepsy), and that took you twenty years?
I don't know what to say. Devotion? Delusion? Endearing madness? I feel a twinge of sadness that you've had to pull out the big guns, with your analog publication three decades ago- it must hurt.
posted
I'm like the Penguin of Hatrack. Ynuk ynuk ynuk! You'll never defeat me Bat-freak! Ynuk ynuk ynuk!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bella Bee, I appreciate your sentiment in attempting to reprove Orincoro for his hateful harshness, but I would just as soon that you did not. Since he has chosen to make himself my adversary, I am glad to see him make a fool of himself.
Steven & Tom, SDAs do not require vegetarianism, we only promote it as a desirable ideal to aim for (as do many other health-conscious groups). Only about half of SDAs are vegetarians. This, in fact, is why SDAs were chosen by government researchers as the ideal study group to establish the actual benefits of vegetarianism. Previously, it was suggested that vegetarians only lived longer lives on average because vegetarians would also observe other health-conscious practices, like not smoking. But the 20,000 or more SDAs in southern California they kept track of in the massive government study, made it possible to remove such things as smoking or social class or culture as factors in the study, since half of SDAs are vegetarians, and half eat meat, while none of them smoke (or use alcoholic beverages), and most come from the same church community and are mainly middle class. So when it was found that SDAs who are vegetarians on average live 7 years longer than SDAs who eat meat, this established a clear statistical advantage for vegetarianism in terms of longevity. The same study also found that those SDAs who are vegans (no diary or eggs), on average live 12 years longer.
By the way, Steven, Cain probably did not think he would ever murder his brother Abel, until the time came when God accepted Abel's offering that showed his faith in God, and rejected Cain's selfish offering that demonstrated a spirit of disobedience and lack of faith in God. Then Cain's true spirit was made manifest.
So don't be so sure what you would or would not do, until you have been put to the test. However, it is fair to say that the decisions you make in what seem to be small things now, prepare the way for what you will decide when it is all on the line.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am glad to see him make a fool of himself.
Orincoro entirely aside, aren't you even aware of the fact that you were proven completely and incredibly wrong in your original presentation in this thread? About how the whole enriched uranium thing you presented was totally false, even according to your own sources? About how you were shown to be completely obstinate towards even being corrected in the face of obvious reality?
Y'all won't make much headway being the biggest fool here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If it makes you feel any better Ron sometimes I get urges to track you down and hunt you like a lion hunts its prey. Speaking of which how tall are you so i know how much ketchup to bring...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If it makes you feel any better Ron sometimes I get urges to track you down and hunt you like a lion hunts its prey. Speaking of which how tall are you so i know how much ketchup to bring...
posted
Satire doesn't need threats of murder, Blayne. Those aren't funny, and they're never flattering.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think you'ld find it does very very often, if you havent seen any of this you need to get out more.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you think you're being funny in this particular instance, you're gravely mistaken.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In context it was, someone said "Ron, we're not planning on murdering you" the funny responce as per gallows humor or dead baby humor is "Bwha? But I am! All that planning for nuttin'" I decided to tune up the subtlety as probably people would've taken offense to the former.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I was being satirical, jeez, I would've thought the reference to cannibalism would've started flashing red lights.
Except when the person already has a martyr complex going. Would you joke with a black man that you were going to lynch him if he didn't shut up?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Bella Bee, I appreciate your sentiment in attempting to reprove Orincoro for his hateful harshness, but I would just as soon that you did not. Since he has chosen to make himself my adversary, I am glad to see him make a fool of himself.
:snort: "Adversary"
You really are a tool.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Orincoro entirely aside, aren't you even aware of the fact that you were proven completely and incredibly wrong in your original presentation in this thread? About how the whole enriched uranium thing you presented was totally false, even according to your own sources? About how you were shown to be completely obstinate towards even being corrected in the face of obvious reality?
Samprimary, that is simply not true. I refuted the attempts to counter what I presented, you just refuse to acknowledge it. I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq. So this does in fact prove that those who called Bush a liar were wrong and should in all honor admit it, and give Bush the public apology they owe him. All attempts at explaining this away are nonsense. Whether you are mature enough and intellectually honest enough to admit it or not, the debate is over. I proved my case.
And that link I supplied from truthorfiction.com did in fact reinforce the argument I presented in the first link. Some of you read superficially, or did not read the whole thing through, or just totally misconstrued it, when you claimed it contradicted my argument. It is no wonder you knee-jerk carping critics are wrong about virtually everything, when you show you cannot read and evaluate any more carefully than that.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons".
Knowing what has been pointed out in this thread, please explain why that yellowcake, which was not useful and was under the control of the UN, justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kmboots, enriching natural uranium so it contains a larger percentage of fissionable isotopes is indeed the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons, or nuclear fuel. FYI, uranium consists mainly of the non-fissionable U-238 isotope. Of the U-235 and U-237 isotopes, the normal concentration found in nature is only about 1%. it takes a concentration of about 5% U-235 to provide a fuel that can sustain a fission reaction. Enriching the uranium consists of removing out enough U-238 with a centrifuge (hard to do because the difference in atomic weights is so slight) so that what you have left can provide a fissionable mass. This is the biggest and hardest step in producing either weapons grade or reactor grade fissionable uranium. Do you understand now?
And I will just point out again, it is utterly stupid, the height of absurdity, to claim that the U.N. controlled these 550 metric tons of enriched uranium in Iraq while the country was still under the control of Saddam Hussein and his 550,000-man army. Also, you forget how many times all the U.N. observers were kicked out of Iraq. Don't you guys have any sense? Do the facts of history so totally escape you?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq.
Let's start with the basics, ron: go back through the thread and find what people said in response to your claim that this was enriched uranium.
Not even your own sources are claiming that this was enriched uranium. So, let's hear you at least concede that your usage of the word 'enriched' is wrong.
And, in case you need it, here's that snopes link again. It refutes what you have to say. Do you have anything to say in response to it? Is snopes wrong?
quote:I will repeat the gist of it. 550 metric tons of enriched uranium yellowcake--the first big step toward producing nuclear weapons--was found to be in Iraq when Coalition forces invaded Iraq
Related to this, right after we invaded, there was a whole mess of top notch troops and equipment in Iraq. Therefore, Saddam Hussein must have been a great threat. With this sort of equipment that is so advanced that only the U.S. has it and such a large number of highly trained soldiers, he'd be a threat to any country in the world.
Honestly, Ron, how could you neglect these troops when castigating the people who doubted George Bush's veracity? I think you might just lack the honor to bring them up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
1)President Bush said that Iraq was building Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons.
2) When no proof of these WMD's were found, some said "We have been lied to."
3)550 Metric tons of uranium yellowcake were removed from Iraq, with full press coverage.
Hence, President Bush had not lied...
although this Yellowcake was the remnants of their nuclear reactor, destroyed in 1991.
although this was nuclear waste that had not been weaponized, nor were there any facilities found to weaponize it.
although, up until the invasion, this waste was under the eye and protection of international nuclear watchdogs and not touched by anyone in the Iraqi government.
although no other facilities or large amounts of current biological or chemical weapons were found.
although no paperwork discussing plans, costs, shipments, blueprints, or other supporting needs were found in the rooms of paperwork our soldiers combed through for information.
although when President Bush made this speech he referenced sources saying that Hussein was buying, not had bought, yellowcake.
although all the intelligence now supports the fact that the information President Bush was using was a bad forgery.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Snopes was wrong, and is unreliable. Snopes is controlled by a liberal, pro-Democrat husband-and-wife team with no expertise in investigative reporting, who are notorious for putting liberal propaganda above facts, and affirming anything critical of conservative positions.
Here is what someone who looked into Snopes had to say:
quote: For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email.
But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it--kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - As a result of snopes.comclaiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political signreferencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are a very Democratic (party) and extremely LIBERAL! I found this to be true during the recent election where anything NEGATIVE about BO was false--A much better source, at least not Biased is "true or fiction". As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.
posted
I don't know if you can rely on wikipedia for an unbiased opinion though. Wikipedia was founded by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Ann Coulter, and a 4 year old cat named Mittens. You've got to read around their Republican and tuna flavored Fancy Feast biases before you can really get at the truth.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: A chain e-mail that "exposed" Snopes contains falsehoods. And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. A State Farm spokeswoman confirms what they reported about the Obama-baiting agent.
This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They're accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
...
Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, "We apply the same debunking standards to both sides."
...
Although our sites have somewhat different emphases – we focus on what's being said in political ads, speeches, interviews and debates, while Snopes.com concentrates more on such things as whether former Monkee band member Michael Nesmith's mother was the inventor of liquid correction fluid (she was) – Snopes.com does take on some claims in the political realm. That has given us an opportunity to evaluate the Mikkelson's work from time to time. We have found it solid and well-documented. We even link to Snopes.com when it's appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.
But I'm sure that those that reply upon chain emails that cite Wikipedia as their source may be less than convinced.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth_Mauve, the documented and proven fact that Saddam was seeking to obtain additional "yellowcake" is completely aside from the fact that he already had 550 metric tons of the stuff. Though the dishonesty of those hypnotized into chanting "Bush is a liar" also extended to trying to dispute this fact as well.
I wonder how many votes in the last presidential election were influenced by people looking up negative information about Barack Obama on Snopes, and having Snopes wrongly claim it was all false?
And of course, Wickipedia is not necessarily free of bias either, though since contribution to it is pretty open, the truth usually can get through, and corrections of false information usually get posted eventually. I don't know what you have against Fancy Feast, MrSquicky--my cats prefer it. And in the case of Wickipedia, it does not matter so much who founded it. As I said, it is fairly open contribution.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ron, as Factcheck says pretty much the same thing, want to try again?
Knowing what has been pointed out in this thread, please explain why that yellowcake, which was not useful and was under the control of the UN, justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it--
The "people" in this quote must be particularly dumb, considering Barbara Mikkelson signs every one of her articles. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
