Print

Print


Fwiw, publishers rarely include cd's in books anymore - instead they
provide a link for downloading whatever would have been on the cd.
Cheaper to produce, they already have a website, and if they're
worried about IP they can make the link obscure enough that nobody
will find it without the book, without having to resort to any access
control or DRM or other technical mumbo-jumbo.

On 4/12/09, Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ...
>>> >> most of it is either too private to share or not
>>> >> good enough to waste other people's time with.
> ....
>
>> I.e. most things that are "too private to share" are also "good enough to
>> waste other people's time with".
>>
>> But then, I'm someone who's both really interested in what other people
>> find
>> interesting / important to them (sometimes for meta reasons, but still),
>> and
>
> "for meta reasons" == "not necessarily interested
> in the things in themselves so much as in the fact
> that other people find them interesting/important"?
>
>> keeps a blog which is probably very TMI for most people even one
>> generation
>> older than me.
>>
>> FWIW I find that when people realize that what they consider 'private' is
>> actually interesting to me and that I've got friends who are way
>> weirder/kinkier/whatever then they are (and thus am extremely unlikely to
>> find their interests to be shocking or offensive or pitiful or whatever),
>> they're much more willing to discuss 'em.
>
> I readily believe that you would be honestly,
> non-pruriently interested in hearing about some
> things that I'm disinclined to talk about.   It
> doesn't necessarily make me more inclined
> to talk about them, though -- at least not in
> a venue as public or potentially public as
> an anthology or mailing list.
>
>
>> The Glossotechnia one might work for the nonfiction anthology, though.
>> Depends whether it's interesting in itself vs being just a description of
>> the game or a blog-like account of how it happened.
>
> I hope I could make it interesting enough in
> itself.   You could look again at the historical
> background part of my Glossotechnia talk at
> LCC2 and judge for yourself how likely I
> am to succeed at that...
>
>> (To give my own parallel: I don't think that my account of how I set up
>> LCS
>> or LCC would be appropriate for either; it's simply not particularly
>> interesting to people who are interested in language or literature, even
>> if
>
> Not necessarily; but perhaps interesting to
> con-runners of various stripes?  -- I found
> George Scithers' long essay/article about
> running the 1963 Worldcon fascinating reading,
> for instance, given my experience and interest
> in running Esperanto conventions and potentially
> an LCC someday -- even though a fair number
> of the details of running a major sf convention
> are not relevant to running a comparatively
> tiny Esperanto or conlangers' convention.
>
> A similar article from you and/or Alex, David Peterson,
> & David Durand would be useful to future
> runners of LCC's, especially if we ever have a
> break in continuity and the organizers of future
> conventions can't talk to the most experienced
> past organizers directly for whatever reason.
> And it might also be interesting to the broader
> community of people who are looking to organize
> a smallish conference or convention of any
> kind.
>
> Going back to the journal entries about my
> experiences at LCC2, -- I've found other people's
> accounts of going to various conventions
> (sf, gaming, Esperanto, LCC1, etc.) interesting
> reading fairly often.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>