[Info-vax] What is VMS?

[Doug Phillips]

On Dec 31 2011, 9:33 am, seasoned_geek <rol... at logikalsolutions.com>
wrote:
> 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"
>
>

Really? Ask.com ? And you actually read that (along with the "talk"
page) and present that as research to defend your position?

Try this one:

< http://apps.americanbar.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-tei/pdf/programs/spring-06/price-gouging-statutes.pdf
>

if wrapped < http://preview.tinyurl.com/76wrj4p >

Or see if you find anything in the Federal Statutes that has anything
to do with one business selling a book or any other non-essential
commodity above SRP. I can't find anything.

>
> > 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.
>

It isn't Amazon's place to set other sellers prices. They do make sure
that 3rd parties deliver what's promised and anyone who doesn't will
be dropped.

I hope you better understand "price-gouging" now that you've read the
laws from an authoritative source. But I am just assuming that you: a)
took the time to read them. b) care.

> > 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.
>

So you deny making an assumption then present an argument explaining
why you made the assumption?


>
>
> > > 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".
>

Pardon me, but do I need to quote my first post here? Look at it,
please. If you think I was jumping in your face then I can only say
that was not my intent. You made a statement disparaging Amazon and I
gave some examples of my personal experience. If my reality is
contrary to your opinion, sorry.


>
>
> > 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.
>

I stand by my statement.


> > > 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.
>

You made a statement of fact that was not based upon knowledge of the
fact. You are now arguing that because I wasn't using industry buzz-
words I must not have any understanding of that industry. I could
speculate that because your use of the English language has been so
sloppy in this thread you must have a very good and patient person
editing your published works -- but I wouldn't say as fact: 'You have
a good and patient person editing your published work' because I do
not know that as a fact.

>
>
> > 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.
>

You've just given us an interesting example of your reading
comprehension skills.


> 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.
>

OK

>
>
> > 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.
>

Nothing you've said so far makes me change my opinion.


> 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/...
..

> http://accounting.smartpros.com/x25810.xml
..

>From 2000 and the questioning was about ACN partnerships and the
"appropriate method to account for transactions that involve trading
services for equity in a company."

If you had dug a bit more; In 2002 the SEC notified Amazon "that no
enforcement proceeding will be recommended in connection with that
inquiry."


> http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/1363741/Amazon+Settle...
..

About the SEC inquiry in 1999 into the accounting practices at
Ashford.com. SEC also investigated Amazon because of their
relationship as a promoter and marketer of Ashford's product and
concluded "no enforcement inquiry would be recommended."


> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/US_Postal_investigation_of_A...
..

The US Postal Service complained that some mailed products were not
properly classified. Amazon paid a $1.5M settlement to the USPS and
they now use the proper postage amount on those products. I haven't
had a USPS delivery from Amazon in a long time, though. Most of mine
come through UPS.


> http://www.mcall.com/news/local/amazon/
..

Amazon's warehouse was too hot and hectic during heat waves in the
summer, so someone complained to OSHA. OSHA "did not issue any fines,
but recommended that Amazon reduce heat and humidity and take other
measures to address heat."


> http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/10/ftc_investigation_...
..

So, Amazon was one of 78 companies nationwide reselling clothing
labeled as bamboo that was not really bamboo. The link also mentions
the well publicized "personal information" inquiries around that time
(those were not limited to Amazon) and also mentions the POD
settlement with BookLocker.

Bad links to support your opinion. Good links to support mine. Thank
you.

>
> 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.
>

OK. I've been a MotleyFool subscriber (yep, I'm a Fool) for a decade
or so and you say you're now a blogger on that site. Maybe you could
provide some links to fact-based articles there, not discussion board
rants, that support your statements. I couldn't find any. How about
MarketWatch, TheStreet or even WSJ. I can read those pages, too.

I couldn't find anything to support your claims of criminal fraud or
that "Amazon's accounting and business practices have been questioned
far and wide in the investing world" other than the resolved and "no
action recommended" inquiries. I do find a lot of links and court
cases where the investment world's accounting and business practices
have been questioned.


> 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.

All of the authors I know get paid by their publishers, not by the
resellers. I don't know how many Indie authors aren't paid or what
contract an Indie author might have signed with whom. I am surprised
by how many indies fall for some of the "pay to publish" scams.

Indies who decide to self-publish had better know a lot more than just
how to write if they want to make money. Reading what some of them
say, though, makes me think that for many of them making money is
secondary to ego stroking. Google (or whatever) should find plenty of
reading on that subject.

>  Once Amazon sucks them into one of their POD
> imprints, there are no external checks or balances.

Anyone is free to sign or not sign any contract they wish. If you sign
a bad contract it's your own fault. If Amazon is not living up to
their end of the contract then the injured party should file a legal
complaint. The major publishers all want to get a contract that is
best for their bottom line, and unless your first book is exceptional
or your name is a household word you might not get the best deal.

>  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.
>

Amazon doesn't force anyone to sign a POD exclusive with them. They'll
sell from any POD publisher.

If someone believes Amazon have violated their contract, then he or
she should file a legal complaint. But, I repeat myself.

Unless you have something concrete to add, not just assumption and
speculation based on a misrepresentation or distortion of facts, I'm
finished here.