Thanks for this clarification, Andy, and glad to see you're still
with us. If it's not too narcissistic of me to read myself as the
"perfectly chirpy" entity described below, it seems that we define
"spam" differently and that you don't consider contributing to "the
ongoing development of the Bloodaxe Web site"--on poetryetc--to be
of that ilk. Happens I do.
So stick around, and I'll catcha at the next slugfest over this
thing we do called poetry, etc.
Candice
Andrew Jackson wrote:
>Right, after unsubscribing a couple of days ago I see there's a
>couple of points which require some clarification.
>
>To all those who were kind enough to reply to my short
>questionnaire, I thought you might be interested in the following
>note from Neil Astley, editor of Bloodaxe Books, who has
>also been generous enough to help me with my postgrad
>research --
>
>Q: As a rule, online poetry bookstores will publish one poem from
>>each book as a means to encourage sales -- however, from the
>>research I've done so far, the minimum number of poems folk
>>will read before deciding on a purchase is generally 3 . . .>
>
>NA: <This is a very interesting statistic which we can take into account in
>our planning. I hadn't realised that the minimum likely number was 3 -
>thanks for this. There won't be any copyright restrictions on featuring
>our own authors' poems on the site, unlike on general sites. We can stop
>text from being downloaded, ensuring that the poems are tasters for people
>wanting to order books.>
>
>
>In a small way you've contributed to the ongoing development of
>the Bloodaxe Web site.
>
>Only one person opted for the following -- a perfectly chirpy
>backchannel response to the effect of 'Sure, no problem, I'll get
>back to you tomorrow', followed by nothing, followed by a
>front-channel airing of a tired old Monty Python joke and a self-
>congratulatory claim that she had not, unlike other folk less smart
>than herself presumably, 'wasted her time'. Cheers.
>
>Did I join this list with the intention of gathering information? Yes.
>Time's running out and I've left things rather late.
>
>Is this the only reason I'm on this list? No. Anyone who may be
>undecided as to whether I'm a market researcher can check the
>latest issue of London Magazine -- there's a couple of poems
>of mine in there. I'm also *not* in the habit of fabricating
>personal details, and am thoroughly pissed off with those who
>do for the sole purpose of spamming the list with troll-garbage.
>I also have no time for those who sympathise with such behaviour
>as being 'textually creative'. Bollocks! As Dom said (I think),
>it comes down to personal accountability, something most folk
>learn by the age of 5.
>
>Anyway -- that's my spiel. Apologies if this has dragged the issue
>out unnecessarily.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|