|
Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger
Yes, I did say you guys were taking yourselves too seriously, then seriously took most of you to task. How else to make the point, but use the same seriousness of argument, other than a dismissive single-liner, which could be considered haughty and dismissive? So, yup, I transgressed.
I haven't caught all of Jukka's posts and understand, if this is a constant sore point he keeps rubbing, i.e., ribbing the British, then it is time for him to get the message and quit irritating the people he is trying to convince of his cause.
I don't know whether I am in the minority or not as regards a preference for glossy paper. I think, given everything else equal, we should be able to agree that a better image is preferrable to a poorer image. I gave 2 examples of books with superior printing. I have literally no interest in the Hawker Hurricane, but, when I took a look at the Hiscock book, and, considering that I was contemplating doing a co-author book with similar types of material, I snapped up a copy of this fairly inexpensive book ($21.95 U.S.). So, rather than belabor the point, let me offer you a challenge to pick up a copy of this book, then compare it to others you think are of good quality. If that doesn't set your sights higher, I don't know what will.
As for Jukka not providing the name of his supplier of information, he simply may not want to get the fellow in trouble with his company. He said as much as that. Demanding the name of deepthroat, having it refused with good reason, should end it right there. All Jukka was trying to say when he started this thread was that he had learned that glossy paper costs less that a dollar additional in the cost of a 320-page A4 sized book versus matte paper and, wouldn't we be willing to pay that small amount extra for the added quality? I repeat that the rest of the publishing costs are irrelevant, as we are dealing with a differential cost.
Regards,
Richard
|