3 ms·

Paul -- I don't mean to be trollish at all. I think of what I did as more a "debugging" exercise :) * Yes, Time and The Economist have varied and sometimes opp

Paul -- I don't mean to be trollish at all. I think of what I did as more a "debugging" exercise :) * Yes, Time and The Economist have varied and sometimes opposite volumes. Your point just isn't meaningful. * This re-rebuttal doesn't address your original point, which wasn't so much about patterns vs books as it was your contention that content is all treated the same. Laura Bush hasn't sold any books yet, but she has the money. * I'm glad you didn't mean what you said. But you did say it. * I really ought to avoid uppercase, you're right. But it's not the same point. The first is about inputs, the last about marketing and selling strategies. Quite different. best, Howard Weaver editor.blogspot.com

pg 17y ago
I'm glad you didn't mean what you said. But you did say it. That's more like it. You'll pick up trolling in no time.
- aristus 17y ago
  For one, I think this is beneath you. Two, you have to expect stuff like this. When you use simplified models of painting or other activities to make your points, very few people are articulate enough to rebut you. But when you go after journos they have knives they've used on much tougher opponents. One of the ways they needle you is to quote you exactly and throw it into your face again and again. A related one is to deliberately misunderstand a point an rebut it with a more-memorable image (eg Laura Bush, who does not make more per-unit, but by that time you've lost the audience) and to repeat it (the dig about Lisp books, which makes even less sense). Referee says you both have points, were both a bit sloppy in supporting evidence. 10-minute timeout.
  - pg 17y ago
    I admit my tone was flippant, but there was a point underneath. The hallmark of a troll is to mischaracterize what you're saying. You never even reach the point of disputing the matter at hand; instead you argue about what you said. I was fooled by trolls the first couple times I encountered them, because I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to waste their time that way. From experience I learned a test for recognizing them: when I kept having to say "No, what I said was..." Now when I find myself about to say that, I just stop participating. My point with Mr. Weaver was simply that it was remarkable how quickly he'd independently reproduced the defining quality of trolls. It was funnier without all this explanation.
    - netsp 17y ago
      I think everyone got the allusion the first (funny?) time, before the explanation. It's still 'beneath you.' It's contributing to pulling the conversation into an uninteresting place, just like getting you talking about what you did and did not say.
Retric 17y ago
Please read: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832987 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832987 to get a clue. Further, publishers have no real advantage over each other. Once you print 100,000 copies the cost per page does not change. Book publishers and Music companies have the exact same business model. They all rely on constant prices, and a few wild successes to make their money. They don't really know how to pick winners so they front a little money as a gamble just like VC's and hope the got a winner to two. The big name authors can get the publishers to fight each other so you end up with a fairly stable equilibrium across the industry. PS: There are lot's of special cases, and even if profit is zero, keeping the presses rolling has value etc. But, that's less important than you might think.

pg 17y ago

I'm glad you didn't mean what you said. But you did say it. That's more like it. You'll pick up trolling in no time.

aristus 17y ago
For one, I think this is beneath you. Two, you have to expect stuff like this. When you use simplified models of painting or other activities to make your points, very few people are articulate enough to rebut you. But when you go after journos they have knives they've used on much tougher opponents. One of the ways they needle you is to quote you exactly and throw it into your face again and again. A related one is to deliberately misunderstand a point an rebut it with a more-memorable image (eg Laura Bush, who does not make more per-unit, but by that time you've lost the audience) and to repeat it (the dig about Lisp books, which makes even less sense). Referee says you both have points, were both a bit sloppy in supporting evidence. 10-minute timeout.
- pg 17y ago
  I admit my tone was flippant, but there was a point underneath. The hallmark of a troll is to mischaracterize what you're saying. You never even reach the point of disputing the matter at hand; instead you argue about what you said. I was fooled by trolls the first couple times I encountered them, because I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to waste their time that way. From experience I learned a test for recognizing them: when I kept having to say "No, what I said was..." Now when I find myself about to say that, I just stop participating. My point with Mr. Weaver was simply that it was remarkable how quickly he'd independently reproduced the defining quality of trolls. It was funnier without all this explanation.
  - netsp 17y ago
    I think everyone got the allusion the first (funny?) time, before the explanation. It's still 'beneath you.' It's contributing to pulling the conversation into an uninteresting place, just like getting you talking about what you did and did not say.

Retric 17y ago

Please read: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832987 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832987 to get a clue. Further, publishers have no real advantage over each other. Once you print 100,000 copies the cost per page does not change. Book publishers and Music companies have the exact same business model. They all rely on constant prices, and a few wild successes to make their money. They don't really know how to pick winners so they front a little money as a gamble just like VC's and hope the got a winner to two. The big name authors can get the publishers to fight each other so you end up with a fairly stable equilibrium across the industry. PS: There are lot's of special cases, and even if profit is zero, keeping the presses rolling has value etc. But, that's less important than you might think.