My point being that sometimes you have to start all over with a clean slate and sometimes you have to sacrifice a few to save many? Just a question
Just as Larry and Willem (PA co-owners) and their armed goons ... I mean security guards... were laughing when the fire alarm went off during the dinner at PA's own conference. What person in their right of mind laughs when they're in a room full of people in a hotel, and the fire alarm went off, right in the middle of a conference you've organized for your own company? Hmmmmm.DaveKuzminski said:As to the last laugh, we don't want PA to be laughing about how they cheated you just like all the others.
</gloves>Gena, I'm afraid that your ignorance about the legal profession is showing.gena140 said:I will ask for her permission to post her name and her firm's name on this site and you may tell her that she's not a contract lawyer.
James D. Macdonald said:For myself, I'm not trying to shut down PublishAmerica. I'm trying to get them to clean up their act. They won't need non-disparagement clauses if their dealings are all honest and above-board. Do they need false and misleading language on their webpage? Do they need deceptive and harmful clauses in their contract? No, they don't. What stops them from being totally upfront about their business model?
Those ten won't be harmed by PA's new-found honesty. Other authors, who are trying to make decisions about their own paths, will be helped if they know exactly what PA's business model is, what they do and don't do, what they can and can't deliver.
Let me quote something else here:
No, not to prove your stupidity. To show you some of how PA takes advantage of people's trust. That section about plates in PA's contract is meaningless. POD books aren't printed from plates. Printing plates are sheets of copper that serve as masters for a different method of printing, offset lithography (someone please correct me if the details are wrong here). Traditionally, contracts said what would happen to the plates when the contract expired or if it were dissolved. Owning the plates meant you could print the book again without the expense of making new plates. Being copper, they also had value as scrap metal if nobody wanted to use them for printing. Copper isn't cheap.gena140 said:Some people didn't like my initial approach and I understand that so I was asked question to prove my stupidity in the business, which I answered regarding plates.
Thank you Jaws!Jaws said:</gloves>Gena, I'm afraid that your ignorance about the legal profession is showing.
I will not respond to any further attempts to prod the shark.
- to continue with their deception. I'm not blaming the victim; I'm irritated because your refusal to recognize that you're wrong about PublishAmerica and its contract is taking energy away from the efforts of others—not just me—to try to provide some accurate and relatively dispassionately presented information.
This was well done. You took the words right out of my fingers. All I could think while reading that article was the only thing missing is *WARNING- PAID ADVERTISEMENT* I can't believe his editor didn't tell the guy to go back and write a real article.book_maven said:Here is what I sent:
Dear Editor,
This column is just awful!
First, it is written as an infomercial rather than a column. It's nothing more than a I-wrote-this-book-and-I-have-this-platform-to-tell-you-to-buy-it.
AnneMarble said:Off the top of my head... Jenna Glatner, James Macdonald, Victoria Strauss, Ann Crispin, Sue Grable, Keltora, Dave Kuzminski, Diana Hignutt, Ed Williams...
And others I've forgotten who will then beat me for forgetting them.
T42 said:Great point and illustration Uncle Jim but didn't he have to destroy it or am I thinking of something else?
Alrighty then, let's get the righteous out of POD land and go for itJames D. Macdonald said:God destroyed Sodom when there was only one righteous man in it -- and He pulled that righteous man and his family out first.
James D. Macdonald said:God destroyed Sodom when there was only one righteous man in it -- and He pulled that righteous man and his family out first.
JennaGlatzer said:Hi and welcome, Marlene and Gena. Sorry I'm late. Had a deadline to meet.
Gena, I lived in Greenville, SC... one of the reasons I left was that it was the most racist place I'd ever seen. Don't know if that's some of what's affecting your image of publishing, but if so, ((((hugs)))). Move to NY!
I do know several black writers who've landed commercial publishing contracts... in fact, I recently hooked up a black writer with a publishing contract, if I may be immodest. You might also want to check out Karyn Langhorne, an AW columnist who posts here and has a 2-book deal with Harper Collins. http://www.absolutewrite.com/novels/after_the_sale.htm
<ahem> I heard you, Anne.AnneMarble said:By the way, when I saw Carl's post, I couldn't help thinking, "Buehler... Buehler... Buehler..."
Well said! I blame me havin' too much coffee for not sayin' it clear like that. *jitter*reph said:We aren't trying to prove you're stupid. We're trying to show that, despite your obvious confidence, you didn't go into a relationship with PA with all the information you needed.
DaveKuzminski said:Gena,
No, actually, your cover has been insulted. Nobody here will insult the book itself. They'll never see it on bookstore shelves.gena140 said:my website and my book have been insulted
I doubt many will see you, cupcake.See ya tomorra sweetie.
Good Lord, had to yank my glasses off...next it will be the teeth, then maybe I'll go with the clothes...Okay, now I'm making myself sickDaveKuzminski said:Gena,
Is that clear now?
gena140 said:so when I approach black bookstores, they don't have a bad taste for PA in thier mouths because I may very well be the first PA author they've seen
Jaws said:</gloves>Gena, I'm afraid that your ignorance about the legal profession is showing.
A writer must learn from his/her mistakes to advance as a writer, let alone in the publishing business. The past few hours here have not demonstrated that you're willing to do so, or at least not in this (far-from-trivial) area.
- If you had read my message at all, you would have drawn the conclusion not that nobody can say that he/she is a "contract lawyer," but that such a general description is meaningless.
- Your attorney can't (and probably wouldn't anyway) object to your identification of him/her as your attorney. That's entirely your decision. In fact, it's the other way around: Only exceptional circumstances allow an attorney to blindly say "I'm x's lawyer" without permission from the client.
- You have, despite several very specific suggestions that the correct attorney to review a publishing contract is an attorney whose practice deals with publishing contracts, continued to insist that a generalist (if that is a fair description of your attorney) is more than adequate. That certainly shows that you're willing to stick to your position. So was the emperor after that notorious visit to the "tailor."
Yes, as a matter of fact this is a personal attack. I am disgusted by the attitude you have displayed to people who offer you knowledge that they have that you clearly do not. It is exactly that attitude that makes deceptive practices like PublishAmerica's work. It is exactly that attitude that allows miscreants like Dorothy Deering (who spent 47 months with free room, board, and clothing at Club Fed for her all-too-similar scheme) to continue with their deception. I'm not blaming the victim; I'm irritated because your refusal to recognize that you're wrong about PublishAmerica and its contract is taking energy away from the efforts of others—not just me—to try to provide some accurate and relatively dispassionately presented information.
I will not respond to any further attempts to prod the shark.