[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pricing, et. al.
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Pricing, et. al.
- From: "Jack C. Thompson" <tcl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:09:17 -0800
- Message-id: <199705010752.AAA16826@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I like to think that I write clearly. Steve seems to ignore what
displeases him; I addressed the second question because I agree that anyone
may sell their expertise for whatever price they and their clients feel is
It *is* wrong for binders, for instance, "...to use publicly subsidized
equipment in order to moonlight and charge lower prices than the private
sector," for the reasons I enumerated.
>1. Is it wrong for part-time binders to charge lower than average prices?
>2. Is it wrong for binders to use publicly subsidized equipment in order to
>moonlight and charge lower prices than the private sector?
>Jack Thompson, in his declaration that "Dennis Gouey is right and Steve
>Hales is wrong" addresses only the second question, and mistakenly thinks
>that I am doing the same. However, this is false. I addressed the first
Perhaps; but I didn't write the questions.
>Jack complains about the cost of his employees, and the little money he
>has >made on videotapes and writing books.
Wrong again, Steve. I've re-read my post and do not find that I
complained. Please do not put words into my mouth. I explained details of
business for the benefit of those who might learn something of value from
them. I did not say how many copies of videotapes or publications I have
sold, or how many billable hours occupy my attention each day.
By taking my post apart and interpreting it as he saw fit, Steve may have
committed a "genetic fallacy" on the rest of us, as in the instance below,
knowingly confusing principle with observed fact by dissembling.
>Jack also claims that "But do not think of ethics. Ethics have no place in
>business as conducted by non-profit institutions or governments." As a
>matter of practice, I sincerely hope that he is mistaken. As a matter of
>principle, morality has an important place in these arenas. Indeed, I
>thought this was the whole topic of conversation.
Steve's response to Dennis: (with respect to credentials)
>A splendid example of the genetic fallacy; viz. the view that the origin of
>a statement has a bearing on its truth value. I suspect that you would find
>it uncompelling for me to merely announce that I am an expert in ethics,
>declare that you are not, and subsequently ignore your arguments. It is
>reason that matters, not the declarations of "authority".
Couldn't have said it better myself, and that is all I intend to say on
Jack C. Thompson