[Info-vax] What is VMS?

[seasoned_geek]

On Dec 30, 10:44 am, Doug Phillips <dphil... at netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [* is guilty of]  Is that what you meant? Or are you referring to a
> book entitled "criminal fraud."
>
> Before you state something as fact, do a little research. You're an
> author, act like one. Look up the legal meaning of "criminal fraud."
> Don't guess and don't assume. So far you have demonstrated a total
> disregard for the facts, but it's hard to tell whether that's from
> ignorance or pure malice. Either way, it's not becoming.

You should take your own advice.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Price_gouging

"it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with
a competitive free market, or to windfall profits"


>
> If you look at Amazon's site you'll see that your book is shown as
> "Available from these sellers" and is not being sold directly by
> Amazon. But fact-checking does take a little effort.
>

And the slightest bit of fact checking by Amazon would have those
listings removed for charging well above list for an in-print in-stock
book, but, they make more money participating in a gouge than stopping
it.

> Your assumption is unfounded and contrary to the statements I made.
> But you, too, may believe what you want. You may not, however,
> question my integrity based purely upon your blind assumptions. If I
> question yours it is based upon what you have written, not on
> assumptions.

I made no assumptions.  Had you actually been "in" the book business
you would have stated such.  Had you actually been "in" the book
business you wouldn't have challenged anything.

>
> > Please don't jump into one of my threads and sing the praises of
> > Amazon.
>
> If you take even a quick glance at the beginning of this thread you'll
> find it is not yours.
>

When you jump in my face, despite all of the other conversations going
on around us, you are jumping in "my thread".  "My thread" may not bee
the "root usenet thread" but most "threads" in comp.os.vms tend to
have 4-7 conversations going on in them.  Most of us only read the
messages pertaining to the conversation we are "in".

>
> It isn't your thread. An author who makes false claims of ownership
> and shows disregard for fact-checking in even his casual writing won't
> be taken very seriously.
>
See above.


> > You haven't been in the book business for 20+ years.
>
> You don't know what business I've been in for 20+ years so you are
> making a statement without having even a passing knowledge of the
> subject. I would have worded that: "I've been in the book business for
> 20+ years. Have you?" But, I'm not an author.

Once again.
I made no assumptions.  Had you actually been "in" the book business
you would have stated such.  Had you actually been "in" the book
business you wouldn't have challenged anything.

Just like an OpenVMS developer can tell how much experience another
developer has by the "way they talk" so can people who have been in
other industries, including the book business.

>
> Through the years I've had more than a passing acquaintance with the
> book industry, from publishers and printers to published authors, both
> personally and professionally. I've learned that statements of fact
> need a citation and writings of fiction or personal opinion need a
> disclaimer. You should know that.

Acquaintances aren't "in" the business same as "leaners" aren't in the
race car.

Please do some actual research.


Academic journals require copious citations.  Industry White Papers do
not.  Writings of Fiction, if bound, need only a BSIC fiction
classification or the word Fiction somewhere on a cover.  Personal
opinions, when placed in on-line forums such as UseNet Newsgroups,
Blogs, and Commentary Web sites which are classified as "vehicles of
personal expression" need no such disclaimer.  While people "may" find
valuable information on both UseNet and Wikipedia, neither is a
redundantly fact checked source.  When writing articles for
Techopedia.com, if one uses Wikipedia, one is required to find 3
(three) redundantly fact checked resources to confirm any information
pulled from there.  Ironically it is roughly the same requirement as
for information pulled from UseNet and blogs.

>
> sound to me like slander unless you provide supporting evidence. 'The
> minimum you need to know to spread FUD' might be a good title for your
> next book.

Amazon's accounting and business practices have been questioned far
and wide in the investing world.

http://news.cnet.com/SEC-inquiring-into-Amazons-accounting-practices/2100-1017_3-247542.html
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x25810.xml
http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/1363741/Amazon+Settles+SEC+Case+Over+Ashfordcom+Accounting.htm
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/US_Postal_investigation_of_Amazon_ongoing_but_details_are_scarce39099577.html
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/amazon/
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/10/ftc_investigation_of_amazon_ov.php

Well, you do the rest of the research.  Much of it requires
subscriptions to paid investing information sites, but, their practice
of reporting only complete company results without breaking out
business units is rife with potential for abuse and is constantly
questioned by money managers.

The other thing continually called into question, both by those "in"
the business, and those of the investing world is just how often Indie
authors aren't paid.  Once Amazon sucks them into one of their POD
imprints, there are no external checks or balances.  Amazon processes
all orders and manufactures all supply.  If Amazon chooses to pay them
for every other print book and every third ebook, there is no way of
knowing, short of the FTC seizing all of their computer systems in a
lightning raid and doing months of investigation.  If Amazon chooses
not to pay U.S. authors for sales in say, the U.K. it would exploit
someone like you who, by your own admission, shops for the cheapest
price.  The price difference very well "could" be the amount the
author was supposed to get.  Their practice of rolling everything up
into one combined company filing for the SEC makes it impossible to
ferret out such information to either confirm or disprove it.

Happy New Years.