tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.comments2023-04-06T11:51:16.564-04:00Dr. SyntaxPeter Ginnahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comBlogger492125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-43973128602968050192017-01-11T23:16:44.083-05:002017-01-11T23:16:44.083-05:00@Larry Darter, thanks for your comment. I'm gl...@Larry Darter, thanks for your comment. I'm glad people are still finding this blog. I have been neglecting it while working on a book of my own about, and titled, What Editors Do. But I have now turned it in to my publisher (look for it this fall) so I'll be posting more in this space soon. As for your comment on traditional publishers, I agree there are other options for authors now and I think that's a good development-- as other posts on this blog, I hope, make clear. Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-28097672896799059382017-01-11T21:29:27.440-05:002017-01-11T21:29:27.440-05:00Obviously, I'm more than a bit late to the par...Obviously, I'm more than a bit late to the party since this post is from 2014. But I just became aware of your site today. The post is still quite relevant to the continuing debate it addresses. Clearly, I think publishers fulfill a necessary role and that no one, authors especially, would be better off if they completely ceased to exist. Yet I think legacy publishers are only a part of the equation now, rather than the sum as it was in times past. At any rate, excellent article with well-constructed arguments. I have subscribed today and so will be reading and commenting on some of your more current articles in the future. Cheers. Larry Darterhttp://www.larrydarter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-34083435691332915762015-07-28T10:44:20.917-04:002015-07-28T10:44:20.917-04:00I agree completely that all the costs of a multi-p...I agree completely that all the costs of a multi-platform title should be allocated across the board. This topic reminds me of how the software publisher where I worked in the 90s would argue among business units and finance on how to allocate the considerable Web infrastructure expenses. At first the direct marketing people thought the Web fixed costs were free so their P&Ls were biased against the print catalogs that in fact drove the bulk of the business through the Web site. But the costs of running a Web site are huge and need to be fully burdened upon the people using it to make sales and receive their bonuses. Integrated marketing requires true cost allocations so everyone involved understands the real costs.Caleb Masonhttp://www.publerati.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-15073532235518742262015-07-05T12:27:47.066-04:002015-07-05T12:27:47.066-04:00Great stuff. Always inspiring to hear authors disc...Great stuff. Always inspiring to hear authors discuss their work with a discerning interviewer. Martha Hodeshttp://marthahodes.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-9418905609384019542015-06-18T14:21:27.258-04:002015-06-18T14:21:27.258-04:00I'm a freelance writer, due to my money needs ...I'm a freelance writer, due to my money needs I often do ghostwriting for a certain predetermined fee. Unlike editors, i don't polish or read through or correct the sentences of already created work. I create the entire manuscript, i put forth my creativity and my skills to develop a product. However, my agreement is that i will sell my work for a pre-determined amount. The contract is simple as that. Editors might believe they are doing a stupenduous job in transforming medeocre manuscrpit into stylish books, but u need a manuscript intially for the work to begin with. Unlike authors, editors spend more or less the same amount of time for every page. The new editing softwares are getting better and better and compatively cheaper and cheaper. Author brings the idea and the publisher brings the market, what an editor brings to the table maybe very important, but not irreplaceable. Guys greed will be the destruction of all, if you believe that your editing work is impeccable ask for a higher pay and thats all you can ask for morally and resonably. My personal reasons for the need of an editor is, I believe completing a book gives me a sense of an accomplishment and I get fed up with the process of writing a long book. I really don't want to do anything further and a person who's new to the story of my book, might give me a 3rd person view and might catch things I missed, but if that 3rd person's opinion is going to get costly I rather do it myself. The final verdict is I can edit my own work. i ask the editors, can u create yours?Cael Nyilasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-61161454591456531372015-05-14T00:19:39.828-04:002015-05-14T00:19:39.828-04:00@Bill S., if you already did the work for a flat f...@Bill S., if you already did the work for a flat fee and there was no discussion of royalties, the author doesn't owe you anything more and it would not be appropriate to ask for it. In general, with any kind of freelance work--even for a fraternity brother or a friend--I would strongly recommend an editor (or proofreader) and author have a written agreement specifying just what the editor is to do and how he or she is to be compensated. You can find one sample agreement on line at http://www.copyediting.com/freelance-sample-contract. But there are many other models and you can find them by searching for "freelance editing agreement," for instance. Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-58171655980888666832015-05-11T11:48:02.702-04:002015-05-11T11:48:02.702-04:00Hello. I am a newspaper editor. Unrelated to my jo...Hello. I am a newspaper editor. Unrelated to my job, I edited a book written by a friend / fraternity brother and received a sum of money for doing so directly from the author. I think that the book was self-published. The author is giving the book to potential clients as a "business card," but the book is also being sold on Amazon. Should I ask the author for royalties? I am thinking: probably not. I accepted a flat fee for editing this book, and there was not any discussion of royalties before we made our agreement. Also, technically, I proofread the book rather than edited it because I didn't make all that many structural changes. I really only corrected spelling and grammar mistakes, so the process wasn't all that complex. What do you think?Bill S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-44316233998413438052015-01-11T14:46:24.777-05:002015-01-11T14:46:24.777-05:00@Lori, you're quite right that to publish e-bo...@Lori, you're quite right that to publish e-books well involves costs. I have not said otherwise. They key word in what you quoted above is "INCREMENTAL." The costs of file creation (formatting, ISBN, etc.) you mention are all part of what I refer to as plant costs above--they are a lump sum regardless of how many copies you sell. Once those costs have been paid, each *additional* copy sold costs virtually zero--in contrast to print, where each copy has costs for printing, warehousing, shipping, and so on. Note that I spoke of the cost advantage *when it comes to manufacturing and distribution.* <br /><br />My point in this post is that because in houses like the Big 5, a lot of the plant costs that DO go with e-books are shared with the print edition, publishers often tend to overlook them and to see e-books as more profitable than they'd be if they were creating e-originals.Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-2339663015576522932015-01-11T02:30:41.719-05:002015-01-11T02:30:41.719-05:00I'm afraid this part of the article is simply ...I'm afraid this part of the article is simply not true: "It is true that e-books have an enormous economic advantage over print when it comes to manufacturing and distribution, because the incremental unit cost of creating & delivering an e-book is virtually nil."<br />===<br />Creating and delivering an e-book costs plenty. Someone still has to pay for editing, copyediting, proofing, cover creation, ISBN, formatting, meta-data entry, debugging, and all the "paperwork" online in order to get the e-book up successfully on multiple sites/platforms.<br /><br />I do believe that print publishing DOES partially underwrite those costs above - but the cost to make an e-book is certainly not "nil." <br /><br />Many of the big publishers are doing a horrendous job on their e-book formatting. 50% of the e-books I've bought from the Big 5, for example, are so shabbily assembled (bad paragraphing, weird characters inserted, ridiculous spacing, etc.) that perhaps they DO think the cost should be nil. Clearly, they are not devoting staff time and attention to proper creation of Mobi and ePub formats more are they debugging and making corrections. Lori L. Lakehttp://www.lorillake.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-48580677408737275542014-11-08T12:47:32.916-05:002014-11-08T12:47:32.916-05:00@Nirmala, thanks for being so forthright and infor...@Nirmala, thanks for being so forthright and informative in your comments. <br /><br />@Richard, I agree that too much of the chatter about "publishing" views the industry as monolithic. Trade publishing, STM, textbook, and scholarly publishing are all quite different from one another. The confusion is perhaps to be expected, because trade books are what the public at large reads and encounters most often. And the most voluble criticisms tend to come from the self-publishing community, who are mostly writing books intended for a trade book readership. Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-54150215027203028192014-11-07T11:48:18.918-05:002014-11-07T11:48:18.918-05:00Part of the problem with posts like the Vox one is...Part of the problem with posts like the Vox one is the tendency to regard "publishing" as one undifferentiated mass. Thus the perceived sins of one part can be spread over the whole industry. There are of course fly-by-night publishers who have treated authors badly. There is a debate about the "appropriate" royalty rate for e-books. There are large publishers, no doubt publishing too many titles, who have failed to give this or that mid-list title the run it might have deserved. Many marketing efforts have failed to catch the public attention: marketing many books is just hard. There are publishers living a lavish life style in luxurious quarters. But the vast majority of publishing doesn't look at all like this at all, and these passionate advocates for "indie publishing" do themselves (and the truth) no good by tarring with their big broad brush. To hear Hugh Howey go on about publishing makes me wonder where my career went: my life in university presses was so different from what he disparages as book publishing.Richard Hollickhttp://rhollick.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-40068807554278309672014-10-30T22:38:20.972-04:002014-10-30T22:38:20.972-04:00PS: In response to your question, the $4,000 a mon...PS: In response to your question, the $4,000 a month is for all of our titles in aggregate, which is why I said we would probably not be of interest to a traditional publisher. Most likely, none of our titles sells enough all by itself to make our next release attractive to them. If one of our titles breaks out and does well, then they might show more interest. Although an imprint owned by Amazon did seek us out at one point, but after a bit of back and forth, they just stopped responding to our emails, which did not help our impression of publishers in general.Nirmalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620667876235314509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-4453958903286492292014-10-30T19:21:27.939-04:002014-10-30T19:21:27.939-04:00Peter,
There was irony in the title of my post to...Peter,<br /><br /><i>There was irony in the title of my post too. Of course it's ironic to ask "Do editors deserve to exist?" They do exist, and will continue to, because they do something for authors and readers that other entities in the marketplace do not. You and Matt Yglesias are free to disagree, but not to tell me what I think I wrote. That's going to be my final comment in this exchange.</i><br /><br />Apparently, you do need some reminding about what you actually wrote, since the title of your piece was "Do Publishers Deserve To Exist?" It wasn't about editors, who we both concede perform valuable services for writers. Maybe you wish you'd written a piece on how editors deserve to exist, but you didn't. The subject is publishers, as that was what Yglesias wrote about also. <br /><br />We certainly agree on the value of editors, but since editors are not owned lock, stock, and barrel by publishers, there's no particular need to sell one's work to a publisher to get it properly edited. There are many, many editors out there who self-published authors can and do hire to edit their books. And one of the many advantages of self-publishing is that the author can find and work with whatever editor they want, and not just with the one assigned by their publisher, who may not be of the best quality or most suitable to their particular book.<br /><br />And again, you bring up the issue of editors being an elite, the point of my "bespectacled" satire, and blithely dismiss the charge, when clearly the traditional editor in a publishing house is indeed a member of an elite, who determine what books get published and which do not. Stories about the old days of publishing, when fathers and sons ran the old houses, are charming indeed, and would make relevant points if that's how publishing houses were still run. But they are not. Most are owned and operated by gigantic insufferably obtuse corporations only concerned about the bottom line in most every publishing decision. That's what the industry has become, and it wasn't Amazon or self-published authors who made it that way. <br /><br />What self-publishing does offer is a respite from the dominance of that elite group of editors and publishers who decided who would get published and how, and what terms they would get. Since literally anyone can publish most anything these days, without going through those elite editors, the elites matter less and less. Which certainly must be painful for the elites, but not for most everyone else. In fact, now those authors can hire the editors, and have them work for them directly. Which is an amusing switch. It's not as if good editors will be out of work. Quite the opposite. The best editors will attract the most work, and not be so dependent on publishing houses for their livelihood.<br /><br />And I can understand why you are done replying to critics. When one does not have good responses, it's best to have none at all. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-71262243806911053542014-10-30T16:06:48.615-04:002014-10-30T16:06:48.615-04:00What is interesting about this entire struggle bet...What is interesting about this entire struggle between Amazon and Hachette (and the publishers, by extension) is that the battle had nothing to do with indies/self publishing. They had no stake in the outcome and still don't. I cover this in this article:<br /><br />Amazon vs. Hachette: It's Over and What Really Happened (and AAAG Owes Indies and Authors an Apology)<br /><br />A web collective I've come to think of as the Aggregated Amazon Ankle Grabbers (AAAG for short) is in a bit of shock. The problem can summed up by this plaintive post on The Digital Reader, a site I rate as being an AAAG member.<br /><br />+++ One has to ask what happened to the demand for ebook prices to be below $9.99, that was apparently so important to Amazon that we indies were asked to write to Hachette on Amazon’s behalf? +++<br /><br />Yes, that is an interesting question, isn't it. Here Hugh Howey and David Gauhgran and Joe Konrath and Passive Lawyer and others have spent so much time telling us how awful agency pricing was. Awful, awful, awful. And that $9.99 was a golden number. Of course, anyone who actually believed that nonsense either A) failed math in high school or B) buys bridges crossing the East River in New York.<br /><br />But, apparently, agency’s not so bad after all if Amazon gets more margin and more MDF. Which it did. Which is what channels always want.<br /><br />And if you, as an indie, suspect you were being used, you were. Yes, those are bus tracks all over your clothing.The publishers used their writers and Amazon used you. And nothing about the outcome of the fight benefited indies in the least. In fact, you never had a real stake in the fight in the first place. Evil agency pricing is alive and well and will be in the future. Amazon is not going to talk anymore about optimal price points and 1.7 more readers and all the rest of that junk. That’s in the past. Until the new contracts are up.<br /><br />What Just Happened?<br /><br />After the major publishers lost the collusion case, Amazon had the whip hand in the negotiations. It decided to swing for the fences. Why not? They had nothing to lose. By forcing the publishers to abandon agency pricing, they would gain control of the E-book publishing pricing model. Channels always like being in charge of that.<br /><br />Part of their strategy was to proclaim the wonders of $9.99. It’s a price calculated to put pressure on the publishers. THAT’s why they put indies in their $7 pricing box and are keeping us/you in it. If indies are allowed out of the box, some of you are going to find out why that box is bad for you and you’ll talk about it. And once you do, Amazon loses an arrow in its quiver to fire at the publishers.<br /><br />Amazon overplayed its hand. Hachette failed to break (Hachette, BTW, will get the same basic deal as Simon and Shuster, as will all the other publishers. All that will differ in the deals will be squabbles at the edges about margins and MDF). Playing games with product availability didn't play well in the press. Having highly visible writers dabbing their eyes while muttering about censorship didn't help. I don’t think Paul Ryan noting his book had disappeared off Amazon played well either.<br /><br />Rest of post up at: http://www.rule-set.com/ricks-blog/amazon-vs-hachette-its-over-and-what-really-happened-and-aaag-owes-indies-and-authors-an-apology<br /><br />And while I think Yglesias makes some valid points about the current publishing model, again, none of what he writes is germane to indies and self publishers.<br /><br />Rick Chapman<br /><br />Author "SaaS Entrepreneur: The Definitive Guide to Success in Your Cloud Application Business"<br />Author "Rule-Set: A Novel of a Quantum Future."<br /><br />rickchapmanhttp://www.rule-set.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-49441039930282515092014-10-30T14:54:35.616-04:002014-10-30T14:54:35.616-04:00@ Peter Ginna: I would guess you might be right ab...@ Peter Ginna: I would guess you might be right about how an author with 25 traditionally published books might be reaching more readers. However, that author would still have to have overcome all of the hurdles to getting those 25 books through the gauntlet of traditional publishing's gatekeepers. And at the rate of success we have had, we can earn $3-4,000 (probably the average is closer to $4,000 as we have not dropped below $3,000 in about 5 years and have sometimes made 10,000 a month), but we would probably still not be successful enough to attract a traditional publishing deal. So we can get there self-publishing, but probably could not get there via traditional publishing unless we first developed a bigger following.<br /><br />And one other point, since we have 25 titles, we have always offered a lot of our books for free, and we have reached hundreds of thousands of potential readers that way, which might be more than making up for the reduced number of readers we reach with our books for sale. It is amazing how fast ebooks fly off the shelf when they are free :)Nirmalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620667876235314509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-4304264446328049742014-10-30T14:31:27.385-04:002014-10-30T14:31:27.385-04:00@Broken Yogi, i do understand that "bespectac...@Broken Yogi, i do understand that "bespectacled scholars" was satirical phrasing, but what you were satirizing was "elite" editors, so it doesn't change my response. I did not think you were criticizing editors for wearing spectacles or frock coats. <br /><br />There was irony in the title of my post too. Of course it's ironic to ask "Do editors deserve to exist?" They do exist, and will continue to, because they do something for authors and readers that other entities in the marketplace do not. You and Matt Yglesias are free to disagree, but not to tell me what I think I wrote. That's going to be my final comment in this exchange. <br /><br />Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-43877088793620382522014-10-30T14:11:09.797-04:002014-10-30T14:11:09.797-04:00@Nirmala, thanks for sharing your experience and s...@Nirmala, thanks for sharing your experience and sales results. I gather that the $3-4000 a month in sales you spoke of is total for all 25 of your titles in aggregate? That is not small change. An author (there wouldn't be many) who had 25 titles actively in print with traditional publishers would, I suspect, sell a good deal more copies than you have done, but might not be seeing that much more income because of the difference in royalty rates. On the other hand, that author might be reaching more readers than you are, which also has value in a different way. Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-85075274623936922202014-10-30T14:04:28.049-04:002014-10-30T14:04:28.049-04:00@Linda, @Andy Hayward, @Peter Glassman, and @John ...@Linda, @Andy Hayward, @Peter Glassman, and @John T. Shea, thanks for your comments. Peter, that is a great--and relevant--story about Tolkien and the Unwins. John, your point about 50 Shades of Grey is also quite relevant. The book was a runaway success as fanfiction; then a red-hot seller for its Australian publisher in e-book form. But it was the marketing and distribution muscle, and the credibility and visibility of Random House that made it into a worldwide phenomenon. In saying that I don't take away any credit (if that's the word in this case) from E.L James or her original publisher. I simply note that the "legacy" publishing house was able to reach a far, far wider audience than she had before, *even as an online bestseller.* Peter Ginnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678504299313188170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-8550980311143865752014-10-30T12:30:25.335-04:002014-10-30T12:30:25.335-04:00An excellent article, Mr. Ginna. A few thoughts:-
...An excellent article, Mr. Ginna. A few thoughts:-<br /><br />Random House, Wiley and Simon & Schuster didn't market Matthew Yglesias' books to his satisfaction? So why did he deal with THREE big publishers, the last only two years ago?<br /><br />Barry Eisler is published quite conventionally by one of Amazon's quite conventional publishing imprints.<br /><br />'Fifty Shades Of Grey' was rewritten by its author, transforming 'Twilight' vampire fanfic into an S & M fantasy trilogy, which she then sold to a small Australian publisher. Only then did a larger publisher buy it for a $1m advance and market it well enough to sell 100m copies all over the world.<br />JOHN T. SHEAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00886287779869326851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-24427572415461335412014-10-29T20:58:00.795-04:002014-10-29T20:58:00.795-04:00Correction/Clarification: "Moby Dick" wa...Correction/Clarification: "Moby Dick" was published by Harper & Brothers (not Harper Brothers). And, of course, it first appeared under the title "The Whale." Peter Glassmanhttp://www.booksofwonder.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-1611786107225997982014-10-29T20:52:25.946-04:002014-10-29T20:52:25.946-04:00When I read your comment that “publishers sometim...When I read your comment that “publishers sometimes invest in books that they know won’t earn out, simply because they believe in supporting talented writers" it brought to mind one of my favorite stories along this line. <br /><br />As a boy, Raynor Unwin used to be paid a token fee (a shilling, I believe) by his father, the head of Allen & Unwin, to read and give his recommendation on children's book manuscripts that the publisher received. The most significant of the manuscripts he reviewed for publication was in 1936, when at the age of 10 he recommended that his father publish The Hobbit. <br /><br />Some 15 or so years later, as a young editor at his father's company, he received Tolkien's manuscript for The Lord of the Rings. After figuring out how the company might publish this massive work (Tolkien always saw it as a single book, not a trilogy), he worked out the numbers and informed his father that they might lose a thousand pounds publishing it. Stanley Unwin replied that if Raynor thought the book was truly an important work, then he had permission to lose a thousand pounds.<br /><br />Of course, Allen & Unwin never lost a penny publishing The Lord of the Rings, but the point is that they had no idea at the time when they committed to doing so. And there are literally thousands of new authors published each year who the publishers have no real idea as to whether their books will be a success or not. Moby Dick was a disaster for Harper Brothers during Melville's life. <br /><br />And while Melville might have self-published if today's technology had been available to him, Tolkien, who saw his writing as a hobby -- not nearly as interesting or important as his scholarly work -- would most likely never have self published even if the technology had been available. For every author out there who has the self-confidence to self publish, there is another author who needs the encouragement and validation of the publishing process to put their words before the reading public. <br /><br />So here's to all ways of being published -- may they all continue to thrive!Peter Glassmanhttp://www.booksofwonder.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-38898137787292927132014-10-29T16:23:14.355-04:002014-10-29T16:23:14.355-04:00Publishers don't edit books. Editors edit book...Publishers don't edit books. Editors edit books. Editors also work for hire, both for publishers and for self-published authors. <br /><br />In either case, a book is either a good read, or not. Most readers couldn't care less how it got that way. Those that do, are probably missing out on a lot of good reads.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-50685248316485444172014-10-29T12:58:49.039-04:002014-10-29T12:58:49.039-04:00A good author loves working with a good editor, wh...A good author loves working with a good editor, why do they invariably go with the editor when the editor moves to another publishing house<br />A good publisher has all sorts of contacts and has good P R and marketing depts to sell the book. As you rightly say EVERY book in an investment. A lot of authors think a publisher have a responsibility to publish them.<br />As ever, whether you are self published or traditionally published you need to capture the eye of the reading public<br />Having been in traditional publishing for 30 years I am now M D of Ether which looks to help unpublished authors but also looks to be another route to the market for authors, If Amazon are the sole route to market it will be desperate for everyone andy haywardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-77774947779688138802014-10-29T09:04:43.292-04:002014-10-29T09:04:43.292-04:00Don't underestimate curation by good editors a...Don't underestimate curation by good editors and publishers. For some reason of all the arts, literary art has the most practitioners and yes, I want them filtered by publishers I trust. I admire experienced and good editors and thank you for this article.Lindanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316886317870996102.post-55407827868424838532014-10-29T04:15:19.984-04:002014-10-29T04:15:19.984-04:00And Jeez, guys, the whole "bespectacled schol...And Jeez, guys, the whole "bespectacled scholars" thing was clearly satire. If you missed that, it's not surprising you're missing so much else.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.com