DescentBB

I know we've got a lot of sci-fi and fantasy fans on this board. I found this on Slashdot:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/1/prweb202277.htm

I agree that a lot of the pulp sci-fi and fantasy out there is crapolla, but this publisher put their foot in their mouth and got their just desserts!

OWNED.

HEH!

wow...

owned indeed. Eat your words, you hypocrites!

LOL!!

Yahoo Maps tells me that Publish America is run out of some douchebag's house, 10.3 miles away from my house in the next town. Apparently the guy can't even spell ACQUISITIONS (check the sender of the email).

Explain to me how the writers submitting a piss-poor story refutes the publisher's claim that sci-fi authors write piss-poor stories. This 'scam' only served to discredit the opinion of a publisher who works out of his house.

It may not, but it sure kills the credibility of their tirade.

BigSlideHimself wrote:Explain to me how the writers submitting a piss-poor story refutes the publisher's claim that sci-fi authors write piss-poor stories.

It doesn't. But it does refute the claim that sci-fi authors' stories aren't good enough for this particular publisher.

And, of course, if they *intentionally* wrote a bad story and still got it published, that probably means if they try to write a good story it's at least a couple levels above "piss-poor".

Lothar wrote:

BigSlideHimself wrote:Explain to me how the writers submitting a piss-poor story refutes the publisher's claim that sci-fi authors write piss-poor stories.

It doesn't. But it does refute the claim that sci-fi authors' stories aren't good enough for this particular publisher.

Yea, I said that in the part you left out when you quoted me.

bad router

BigSlideHimself wrote:Yea, I said that in the part you left out when you quoted me.

Right... but the sci-fi authors didn't set out to prove their writing wasn't piss-poor, they just set out to prove that the company claiming to have "higher standards" in fact had low enough standards that they'd accept stuff that was intentionally poorly written by the very people they said weren't good enough.

In other words, they didn't set out to prove thier stuff was good on an absolute scale, only that it was at least as good as the stuff published by the publisher that was ragging on them (that is, it was relatively good in comparison).

The publishing company is run out of some guy's house, their relevance is shot from the beginning.

PS, if someone said you sucked at something, would you call them an idiot, or prove they were wrong?

BigSlideHimself wrote: PS, if someone said you sucked at something, would you call them an idiot, or prove they were wrong?

Yes.

BigSlideHimself wrote:PS, if someone said you sucked at something, would you call them an idiot, or prove they were wrong?

If they said I sucked worse than them, I'd beat them at it (thereby proving them wrong) and also call them an idiot.

P.S... I'd do both.

And hey.. I run a publishing company out of my house I publish more non-fiction books though, hopefully not piss-poor.

Still, lmao.

you call them an idiot on both sides of proving them wrong. before and after.

"You idiot, I am right, you are wrong. Q.E.D., you idiot!"

??

conceptually, yes.

your "proof" segment isn't as long as i had estimated.

Hehe- some people are just stupid.