[John Vasco]

Richard,

In reply to your comments, you tell me to get a life. Well Richard, I say to you go read all that Jukka has written in recent months. It has been in the main dismissive, negative, and with hardly any constructive criticism at all. His comment I took exception to was more than a little ribbing. See it for what it is. I can take piss-taking with the best, but his remark is beyond that. Wake up, Richard, to the fact that certain personalities on this board have a 'down' on certain nationalities, and certain companies, and seek to take a pop at them at every opportunity. Jukka's comment was a snide comment, and got the reply it deserved.

And it is perfectly reasonable for me to go to the lengths I did in my large post, simply because Jukka was making claims regarding comparative printing costs that he did not back up with hard facts. Or has 'political correctness' come so far in your eyes that I dare not challenge what he says, and dare not set out specifics regarding full costs in the publishing world.

You say in your last paragraph that Jukka has a valid point, and should be respected for it. Well, when challenged about his allegations he has come up with precisely nothing. I haven't ridiculed him, I have simply asked of him the tenet, "He who asserts must prove", and he has not provided any proof whatsoever regarding his claim to 'one dollar difference'.

Richard, you tell me to get a life? Take a reality check on this thread, and others, mate. Over time this board has been beset with people who are quite happy to castigate others, or make certain claims against others, or companies, that they have taken a particular dislike to. Go back and read the other topics/threads carefully, Richard.

"It is a straight paper cost comparison. Oh, maybe glossy paper might absorb a different amount of ink, so ink cost might be slightly affected. But anything else is a constant and thus irrelevant to cost differential determination, assuming that one doesn't have to purchase a new press to make it happen." This misses the point I was making totally. I was talking about the overall budget allocated to the production of a single book. Yes, finite budgets do apply in the publishing world. That's why I listed all the points that I did. You ignore that point completely. And that was the crux of my post. It is not a straight paper cost comparison. You are arguing from too simplistic a platform, and the danger is that others will come to believe that it is simply "...a straight paper cost comparison..." For a company the size of Ian Allen, who are the parent company of Classic as you know (but some others may not), ALL of those considerations I listed come into play. If they were not taken into account, they would soon be out of business due to having no structured financial business plan.

It is easy for someone like Jukka to criticise a company for not using the highest quality paper in their books at all times, and that is his right to speak his mind. But wait, this is a discussion board, so it is the right of others to challenge what he says, and ask for more information concerning what he asserts. Nothing unreasonable in that, Richard. Or is there? If there is, for the life of me I cannot see it.

And finally, you say that "You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.", and then you proceed to write a post that is every bit as serious as the ones you criticise. Hilarious! Additionally, where is the absurdity in what has been posted?

Richard, to quote your phrase, "Get a life!!"