Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 7th 05, 12:51 AM
David Ames
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why refrain from selling certain chess books?

Because one is short of capital and has to make choices of what to
carry or not carry. Because one doesn't want to be caught with
unsalable stock. Because one has to make business decisions when
running a business.

David Ames

  #2   Report Post  
Old October 7th 05, 01:13 AM
Mike Murray
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Oct 2005 16:51:01 -0700, "David Ames"
wrote:

Because one is short of capital and has to make choices of what to
carry or not carry. Because one doesn't want to be caught with
unsalable stock. Because one has to make business decisions when
running a business.

David Ames


Of course -- the obvious answer. But to assume it applies to this
thread begs the question. Some readers have suggested that other
reasons, personal grudges, quality issues, editorial standards,
avoiding certain controversies, may be at work.

I think most USCF members would have no problem with stocking
decisions based on editorial standards and quality, so long as these
decisions are applied uniformly and without bias. This, IMO, is the
issue under discussion.

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 7th 05, 01:51 AM
David Ames
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Mike Murray wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 16:51:01 -0700, "David Ames"
wrote:

Because one is short of capital and has to make choices of what to
carry or not carry. Because one doesn't want to be caught with
unsalable stock. Because one has to make business decisions when
running a business.

David Ames


Of course -- the obvious answer. But to assume it applies to this
thread begs the question.


If you will view through Google groups, you will see that I just
started this brand-new thread. I am not sure what you mean by "begs
the question." In high school math, bearly 50 years ago, I learned
that "beg the question" means to assume the truth of that which is not
proven. When I took Logic in college, I was informed in the same way.
I did not assume my response was true. I offered it as a response to
the question which I stated in my subject caption.

Some readers have suggested that other
reasons, personal grudges, quality issues, editorial standards,
avoiding certain controversies, may be at work.

Yes. But I have not yet noticed anyone else suggesting that legitimate
business decisions were involved.

I think most USCF members would have no problem with stocking
decisions based on editorial standards and quality, so long as these
decisions are applied uniformly and without bias. This, IMO, is the
issue under discussion.


Uh-huh. I have different terms of discussion. And I remind you that I
did not join the previous discussion, I started a different thread with
different discussion.

David Ames

  #4   Report Post  
Old October 7th 05, 02:12 AM
Mike Murray
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Oct 2005 17:51:24 -0700, "David Ames"
wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 16:51:01 -0700, "David Ames"
wrote:


Because one is short of capital and has to make choices of what to
carry or not carry. Because one doesn't want to be caught with
unsalable stock. Because one has to make business decisions when
running a business.


Of course -- the obvious answer. But to assume it applies to this
thread begs the question.


If you will view through Google groups, you will see that I just
started this brand-new thread.


You're right. My error.

I should have said something like, "to assume it applies to the topic
under discussion in related threads begs the question". Now, even
this involves an assumption on my part. Maybe you just posted an
observation out of the blue. But, I assumed your urge to contribute on
this topic was stimulated by recent posts in related threads about
Schilller, Parr, Evans, et.al. and Chess Cafe.

I am not sure what you mean by "begs
the question." In high school math, bearly 50 years ago, I learned
that "beg the question" means to assume the truth of that which is not
proven. When I took Logic in college, I was informed in the same way.
I did not assume my response was true. I offered it as a response to
the question which I stated in my subject caption.


We've been arguing, again in those related threads, over whether the
decision not to carry Schiller's books was a purely business decision
or had some other motivation. Your post about "why one would
refrain... etc" suggested valid business reasons for doing so. Which
implied to me a judgment that these valid business reasons applied to
Chess Cafe's decision not to stock Schiller books.

Some readers have suggested that other
reasons, personal grudges, quality issues, editorial standards,
avoiding certain controversies, may be at work.


Yes. But I have not yet noticed anyone else suggesting that legitimate
business decisions were involved.


When I replied to Louis Blair:

My points a (1) regardless of their quality, Schiller's
books *do* sell, as evidenced by the fact that major
booksellers such as B&N present them prominently in
their brick-and-mortar stores and (2) by not carrying them,
Chess Cafe (and hence, USCF) probably forgoes some
revenue.


I thought I *was* addressing this topic, although perhaps not as
explicitly as you might prefer. [OK, I see I'm in danger of turning
into Nick Bourbaki, so I'll stop now... :-) ]

I think most USCF members would have no problem with stocking
decisions based on editorial standards and quality, so long as these
decisions are applied uniformly and without bias. This, IMO, is the
issue under discussion.


Uh-huh. I have different terms of discussion. And I remind you that I
did not join the previous discussion, I started a different thread with
different discussion.


Indeed you did, and I have no argument with your claims, as they
stand.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Book sales, Schiller, and USCF Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 286 October 21st 05 10:51 PM
ChessCafe blackmailing USCF? [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 165 October 7th 05 08:05 PM
ChessCafe blackmailing USCF? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 117 October 7th 05 06:04 PM
This is hilarious chess! [email protected] rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 5 October 3rd 05 06:39 PM
This is hilarious chess! [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 October 3rd 05 06:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017