The MacAllister is a tyrant and Hapisofi was mean to me thread

[mathewferguson]

Originally Posted by Silver King

I vote for banning Mat based on his continued misrepresentation of his qualifications, as well as the very real threat that some people from AW might actually seek his services. No sense allowing him any more free press to lead others down a ruinous road.

Oops. Wrong thread. I thought this one was in the Super Secret Room...

Prove that I have misrepresented my qualifications.

Where is your evidence?

[KTC]

If a powerful person with authority in any field made the statement "This person is a lying sack of shit" without any evidence, it would have serious repercussions for their business.

But what if they removed the 'lying' part?

[mathewferguson]

Originally Posted by James D. Macdonald

This is not true.

No post by you was deleted in that thread, unless you deleted it yourself.

Sorry James but it is true. I posted up a response to MacAllister and also HapiSofi pointing out a factual error HapiSofi had made regarding me apparently not working at a trade publisher.

The post is gone entirely. There isn't even that "Removed because..." message. A minute after that MacAllister locked the thread with a post and then you wrote your final post.

The post was deleted. Check with MacAllister. She was the one who locked the thread so I expect she was the one who deleted it.

[Shadow_Ferret]

[Wayne K]

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

I'm sure, since you have seem to be familiar with the area of law, that you know that appending "I think" to the front of something does not provide automatic 100% exclusion from being libel.

You would probably also know that mixing opinions and libel together doesn't transform the libel into opinion.

If a powerful person with authority in any field made the statement "This person is a lying sack of shit" without any evidence, it would have serious repercussions for their business. They have an incredibly high level of duty of care regarding what they say because they would be expected to have evidence.

A blogger might say someone is a thief but the New York Times needs actual proof before they can publish such a claim.

The standard of proof required is much higher because of their position.

She has not the slightest sliver of evidence. Not one speck.

Since we're splitting hairs, she didn't give the opinion that you are a liar, she gave one that you are full of shit. That can apply to muddling words and being deceptive, which you were doing.

[James D. Macdonald]

I have checked with MacAllister. She denies it.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

I haven't lied about anything. I've been more transparent about the work I've done than practically anyone. Check out the about pages of some agents and see how much detail they give.

Dude do you REALLY want to go there?

Colleen Lindsay--agent at FinePrint Literary Management. Here's her Publisher's Marketplace listing. Here's her page at FinePrint

Janet Reid--also at FinePrint. Her FAQs include recent sales. Janet Reid, and sometimes Colleen Lindsey post in this thread on AW answering questions.

Jenniefer Jackson of the Donald Maas agency blogs here. Her Website listing recent sales and current clients is here. You can read about here background, and that of other DMA agents here.

[MacAllister]

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

Sorry James but it is true. I posted up a response to MacAllister and also HapiSofi pointing out a factual error HapiSofi had made regarding me apparently not working at a trade publisher.

The post is gone entirely. There isn't even that "Removed because..." message. A minute after that MacAllister locked the thread with a post and then you wrote your final post.

The post was deleted. Check with MacAllister. She was the one who locked the thread so I expect she was the one who deleted it.

*Raises hand shamefacedly*

Crap.

Actually, as awful as it is to have to say so, this one is on me. I just went at looked at my own admin logs, to confirm. I apparently checked the wrong box, in the flurry of moving posts here and there. I'm looking now to see if I can find where that post went, into the ether.

It was absolutely not intentional, and I didn't realize I had removed that post until I accessed my own logs. I apologize, Mathew, and Jim, to you as well.

Mathew, we do NOT, as a matter of long-standing policy here, disappear posts entirely. We do, on occasion, soft-delete posts -- which I did, in the children's book thread.

This is entirely my error, and I will do what I can to restore the post.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by Kaiser-Kun

Mister Ferguson, you seem awfully determined to prove wrong the mean people who called you names. That doesn't speaks well of your professionalism. I'd recommend you leave with dignity rather than get into childish pointing and yelling.

Too late; this isn't the first writer's site he's performed on.

[mathewferguson]

Originally Posted by escritora

Let's be clear. I didn't accuse you of anything in the first post, and I didn't accuse you of lying in the second post. Though to be frank, I think you are a bag of shit.

It is that kind of equivocation that leads to someone three posts later saying "YOU CHANGED YOUR PAGE AND YOU LIED ABOUT IT!"

Then a couple of posts later it is now an established FACT.

Then a couple of days later the Editor in Chief launches a tirade where she calls me a lying sack of shit without the slightest bit of evidence.

[mathewferguson]

Originally Posted by Wayne K

Since we're splitting hairs, she didn't give the opinion that you are a liar, she gave one that you are full of shit. That can apply to muddling words and being deceptive, which you were doing.

She said openly and more than once that I was a liar.

She then added to it by saying I was a lying piece of shit.

Go back and read the posts if you don't believe me.

I'm not muddling words or being deceptive. Her posts are there for anyone who cares to see them.

[HapiSofi]

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

Let's be clear. I'm being accused of being a lying sack of shit. I think it is very important to be clear.

Never thought I'd see that done in real life.

Conrade:

Off, coxcomb!

Dogberry:

God's my life, where's the sexton? let him write
down the prince's officer coxcomb. Come, bind them.
Thou naughty varlet!

Conrade:

Away! you are an ass, you are an ass.

Dogberry:

Dost thou not suspect my place? dost thou not
suspect my years? O that he were here to write me
down an ass! But, masters, remember that I am an
ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not
that I am an ass. No, thou villain, thou art full of
piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness.
I am a wise fellow, and, which is more, an officer,
and, which is more, a householder, and, which is
more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in
Messina, and one that knows the law, go to; and a
rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath
had losses, and one that hath two gowns and every
thing handsome about him. Bring him away. O that
I had been writ down an ass!

Exeunt

[scarletpeaches]

Unless she edits her posts.

SHAZAM! Mac makes the 'lying sack of shit' accusations disappear!

She's like...MacCannister Coppafeel.

[James D. Macdonald]

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

Sorry James but it is true. I posted up a response to MacAllister and also HapiSofi pointing out a factual error HapiSofi had made regarding me apparently not working at a trade publisher.

The post is gone entirely. There isn't even that "Removed because..." message. A minute after that MacAllister locked the thread with a post and then you wrote your final post.

The post was deleted. Check with MacAllister. She was the one who locked the thread so I expect she was the one who deleted it.

So it is. And I had even quoted a bit of it before locking the thread.

I did not remove it. Mac did not remove it. Perhaps one of the other mods, in a spirit of helpfulness, did so.

I do recall your post. You weren't doing yourself any favors.

To get a better idea of the people and the situations you're dealing with here, may I suggest you read this thread from beginning to end, paying close attention to what is said, how it's said, and who is saying it.

[Update] Well darn.

Reading what's been posted while I was looking around in other open tabs here to see if I had a copy of the post somewhere, Mac tells us that she did delete it. Sorry about that. Deleting stuff isn't my style, and I thought I was the last one in that thread.

[Kaiser-Kun]

Originally Posted by scarletpeaches

SHAZAM! Mac makes the 'lying sack of shit' accusations disappear!

Or maybe... they were never there to begin with!

[MacAllister]

I said this upstream, but the thread is moving fast.

With regard to Mathew's vanished post: Mea culpa

As awful as it is to have to say so, this one is on me. I just went at looked at my own admin logs, to confirm. I apparently checked the wrong box, in the flurry of moving posts here and there. I'm looking now to see if I can find where that post went, into the ether.

It was absolutely not intentional, and I didn't realize I had moved that post until I accessed my own logs. I apologize, Mathew, and Jim, to you as well.

Mathew, we do NOT, as a matter of long-standing policy here, disappear posts entirely. We do, on occasion, soft-delete posts -- which I did, in the children's book thread. I suspect your post has moved somewhere weird, and it's entirely my fault. There were three of us working in that thread at the same time, and that can do odd things to the database if a post has been checked for any reason.

This is entirely my error, and I will do what I can to restore the post.

[Birol]

Mat, you seem very hung up on being called a lying sack of shit. I swear to you, on whatever religious text you prefer, that I've been called far worse, both publicly and privately, on this message board and off it, by people in the past. If one person's opinion -- and whether or not it is libel, it is still an opinion -- has that much negative impact on your business, then your business is not built on a solid foundation.

Now, if we could get back to your About Page for a moment (I apologize for the delay, but I received a phone call I'd been waiting for). Let me get this straight: I asked you about your qualifications and, in response, you told me to read your About Page, correct? Then, you stated that while I could read your About Page, it did not list your qualifications, correct? And, when I questioned that, you asked if I had read your About Page.

Doesn't this seem a little circular to you? If want to find out about you, I must read your About Page, which by your own admission doesn't list all your qualifications, but if I question you about that, I get referred back to the About Page... Again, I am tired, but this seems a bit confusing to me. Perhaps you could clarify for me?

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

Yes I worked for Penguin in 2003 and I worked for free. For zero. For zilch.

Whoa. Wait. This pro bono work for Penguin was just in 2003? On one hand, I recognize this was six years ago and a person can grow and develop quite a bit in six years, but then again, it was only six years ago and, in the world of publishing, that's very recent.

[mathewferguson]

Originally Posted by HapiSofi

Never thought I'd see that done in real life.

So you pop in to make some snide comment but not to answer direct questions?

You did read that I worked at Pearson, didn't you?

You did say I hadn't worked at a trade publisher, didn't you?

So you would be ... wrong.

Factually wrong.

I thought I might address all the stuff you write about Funtastic yesterday. You should surely know that web-research from outdated pages doesn't tell the whole truth.

Yes, that company were terrible at updating their website. You can't imagine how frustrating it was to see errors all over it and we couldn't get them changed.

The bit you missed out on what that Funtastic was a licensed publisher that moved into trade publishing. They weren't a simple repackager or someone not traditionally associated with publishing.

Funtastic actually won the Disney publishing license from Penguin. That cost millions - hardly something some nothing place would be able to do.

But you just assumed. You assumed on the basis of shoddy research that you were correct and went from there.

I have no doubt that if I had written "I've worked for Pearson publishing" in my About page then you would be saying something around me not working there long enough or not working for enough trade publishers. There is no number or figure or level at which you'll be satisfied. If I've negotiated 10 contracts then 20 is the level. If I've negotiated 50 then 100 is. If I've negotiated 100 then I'm lying. Or if I've negotiated the right number they aren't the right type.

You really made some bad assumptions and then some terrible statements.

[Izz]

Y'know, Mat, in that last thread of yours you asked me to look back through all your posts and find where you'd backtracked or changed your tune. So i did. I had a whole long post written up with links to previous posts of yours where you'd said something and then posts further on down the track where you'd changed your tune (all from the first half of the thread, mind you), as well as a bit of running commentary.

Then RT locked the thread and i couldn't post. Just as well, i thought, there's really no point me doing this, it'll just look like a slap. Now i wish i had.

Here's an interesting thing. The first use of liar in that thread (without a shred of evidence to back it up, as well), was made by you. Post 28, in point of fact. And you get upset when you're called on it. And when someone says they think you're a liar also, you get all upset and starting yelling 'libel.' How interesting.

In Post 106 you state that you don't mind a bit of online fire from time to time and that you always stand by what you say. Obviously you only like the fire when you're the one firing. Not so happy when the fire's directed back at you, are you?

Actually, what the hell? Why let a perfectly good post go to waste? Especially when you're so adamant you've never changed a word you've said (and i don't even touch on the whole would've/would of thing).

My last post on these subjects, because these horses have already been beaten to death. And i'm only doing this because you asked and i have time.

Some examples, with the thread being used as context. I'm not going to quote the entire posts, but i will put links to each post.

Post 27, this here thread--you state that knowing editors doesn't really mean anything.

Post 28--you make the statement that agents who say they work 24/7 are liars (the first use of liar in the thread, incidentally) and that editors don't want relationships with agents, and that that is 'truth' and that you don't have a high opinion of the profession as a whole.

In post 131 you say that you haven't been making the claim that 'connections don't matter' and that it is a misrepresentation of your position, which is odd, because in post 27 and 28 what you said was quite different. Backtrack, methinks.

Post 54--you expand on the 'myths of the profession.'

post 56--you reference Special Pleading (incorrectly) for the first time and contend that there are no obvious differences between publishing in the UK, the US, and Australia. In post 108, after having it pointed out to you that you used special pleading incorrectly, you contend that you didn't, but miss out the point that it wasn't that the fact you were in Australia that was being contested, but that the publishing industry in Australia works differently to that elsewhere.

Post 54 and 56 leads onto post 59 and post 60, where after being presented with statements from people entrenched within the US industry that query letters are important in the US you disagree with their informed statements with statements of your own that are not quite so informed. You also make a statement that infers that anybody who believes agents work hard is according them some 'holy position.'

We continue on the whole train (you disputing everything that doesn't agree with your thoughts, and particularly those who have insight into those processes), with a notable summary in post 89 in which you say 'Quit the Agent Worship' when no agent worship has been taking place, just rebuttals of what you'd stated as fact. Post 89 is also notable because that is where you begin really telling us that SEO is the way to go, concluding with:

There is another reason why post 89 is interesting. You quote what someone says about agents working 24/7, which was this, in case you've forgotten:

You will later attempt to say that the person was meaning that literally, when it's quite plain that they weren't, but that they were speaking about horrible hours. In fact, you're still attempting to circle back around to the 24/7 (but now calling it 'long hours' instead) thing as recently as post 470, when it hasn't been in play for quite some time.

For the next few posts you expand on how grand SEO is (and talk about some other stuff too), quoting examples of established authors who use such successfully, etc.

Post 120--you 'clarify' your position slightly on SEO. Well, no you don't, you backtrack, because suddenly you're saying it's not all that important, whereas before you had been touting it as the thing everybody had to do. And later on you say 'I think SEO is mostly bullshit.'

Unfortunately a little bit after this someone brought your age into the equation, and you've been using that ever since as a circling and diversionary device wherever it suits you.

And that's only the first half of the thread. The backtracking and circling trend has continued on since.

Post 66--while responses of yours before this had touched on being impolite, this one certainly crossed the mark.

Again, you're circling back to these things. That's a diversionary tactic.

If you hadn't sidetracked off onto tangents about how agents are liars and then started arguing with people who disagreed, then those questions would've been asked.

Seriously, what are you hoping to achieve here, Mat? By starting a childish thread like this, you've lost any credibility you might've had. Why couldn't you just listen to people who said 'go away for 6 months to a year, make some sales and come back and discuss this further?'

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by Birol

Whoa. Wait. This pro bono work for Penguin was just in 2003? On one hand, I recognize this was six years ago and a person can grow and develop quite a bit in six years, but then again, it was only six years ago and, in the world of publishing, that's very recent.

Yes. He worked for free. And wants to be an agent.

15% of nothing is . . . let me see now . . . carry the one . . . oh. Yeah. Nothing.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by mathewferguson

I have no doubt that if I had written "I've worked for Pearson publishing" in my About page then you would be saying something around me not working there long enough or not working for enough trade publishers. There is no number or figure or level at which you'll be satisfied. If I've negotiated 10 contracts then 20 is the level. If I've negotiated 50 then 100 is. If I've negotiated 100 then I'm lying. Or if I've negotiated the right number they aren't the right type.

I have contacts at Pearson Australia, and Penguin Australia.

Who might possibly know who you are?

Can you even provide an ISBN or IISN?

[Birol]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

Yes. He worked for free. And wants to be an agent.

15% of nothing is . . . let me see now . . . carry the one . . . oh. Yeah. Nothing.

Oh, yeah. I realize I'm glossing over the zero pay thing. What I'm getting out of this is how he's talking about the pro bono work as if it were ancient history, but it was actually very recent. To me, it shows out how wet behind the ears he really is.

[som1luvsmi]

Um...Mr. Ferguson....it's been pointed out that Mac didn't lock the thread, Mr. MacDonald did, and Birol moved it. If you're going to rant about being misrepresented, it would be good to get that straight.

The fact that you lit into escritora when she was trying to be polite and say that your About page now read smoother and that you should include more information, really seems to me to show that you're not really here to clear things up, but to keep this thing going.

If you would have clearly stated those companies for which you had done work and the titles you worked on and tried to be an adult about this instead of playing the 'too little, too late' card, I think it might have gone a long way in showing the people on this board your sincerity and your ability to get along maturely, even with those who disagree with you.

But all I've seen you do is be on the defensive instead of offering concrete evidence to the contrary.

You've already stated something? Politely link back to it.
You feel you're being attacked? Maturely find a way of stating a rebuttal or asking a question in return.
You've been called names? Deal with it in a mature way.

And if you find that you were in the wrong about something, humbly say so and apologize and do what you can to make it right.

Mac has given you an excellent demonstration of this. Which is just one of many reasons why she is respected around here.

Take a breather. Look back at everything and make the decision of whether this is the right place for you. If it is, try again with a calmer attitude and see what happens.
I know I will think more of you for it.

[mathewferguson]

Originally Posted by Birol

Mat, you seem very hung up on being called a lying sack of shit. I swear to you, on whatever religious text you prefer, that I've been called far worse, both publicly and privately, on this message board and off it, by people in the past. If one person's opinion -- and whether or not it is libel, it is still an opinion -- has that much negative impact on your business, then your business is not built on a solid foundation.

Now, if we could get back to your About Page for a moment (I apologize for the delay, but I received a phone call I'd been waiting for). Let me get this straight: I asked you about your qualifications and, in response, you told me to read your About Page, correct? Then, you stated that while I could read your About Page, it did not list your qualifications, correct? And, when I questioned that, you asked if I had read your About Page.

Doesn't this seem a little circular to you? If want to find out about you, I must read your About Page, which by your own admission doesn't list all your qualifications, but if I question you about that, I get referred back to the About Page... Again, I am tired, but this seems a bit confusing to me. Perhaps you could clarify for me?



Whoa. Wait. This pro bono work for Penguin was just in 2003? On one hand, I recognize this was six years ago and a person can grow and develop quite a bit in six years, but then again, it was only six years ago and, in the world of publishing, that's very recent.

I was asking if you had bothered to read my About page. I was confirming that went I post a link that people from time to time actually go there. So did you read it?

I take it you are referring to post #44 regarding the work for Penguin. I also assume from your surprise that you in fact did not read my About page which clearly states:


Mathew made his first professional sale in 2003, selling himself as a writer to Penguin to adapt the much-beloved Disney film Pinocchio to a 32-page storybook. For this sale he earned a whopping $0 and a promise of future paying work. He followed this up with two further jobs for Penguin earning himself $0 and more promises of future paying work.
Sensing that selling writing for nothing was not a fiscally advantageous strategy, Mathew took a job at Funtastic Publishing as a writer and editor.

I don't have Pearson on the About page because I hated the job. It makes me cringe when I think about it. I don't care if that would bolster my claims as an agent or convince someone to send work to me. I hated it.

My project list is four pages long, cut down. That version doesn't list everyone I've done work for either. Years of freelance writing and editing produces a long list.

Six years in the world of publishing isn't recent. I usually think of it as six years of supporting myself financially with my writing, editing and publishing skills.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

I have contacts at Pearson Australia, and Penguin Australia.

Who might possibly know who you are?

Can you even provide an ISBN or IISN?

I don't doubt that Mat worked at Penguin and did the whole Pinocchio adaption. There's a Pinocchio book in the Australian library system that has his name on the front cover (there's linkage in one of his posts in the other thread).

I don't doubt his other publishing industry credentials either (though i doubt how relevant they are). But i have no confidence in his ability to sell my work, or in his ability to maintain a professional demeanor or act in a professional capacity, or in his ability to deal with anybody who disagrees with him.