X-Ftn-To: acdouglas

"acdouglas" wrote:
>In any case, the very first -- and absolutely necessary -- step for you if
>you're looking to get published in America: Get an American agent!
>
>For better or worse, that's the way the game is played today.

Actually, you are completely wrong. This is how the things were
_before_ print-on-demand came into play. Now, at this point, I don't
need an agent, he couldn't contribute to what I already have, in any
way. I could have used one a year ago, but now, I have printing and
distribution handled already - I can completely bypass the
conventional publishers. However, I need a specialized marketing
agency in order to promote the book, and this is what I'm looking for
now. This is the only major edge that the big houses have over me:
they dedicate a part of their budget to promotion, which means big
money; I don't have big money.
And, contrary to the public opinion, quality doesn't make a book sell:
promotion does, at least at first. Quality starts making a difference
only after enough people have read the book to create the word of
mouth phenomenon.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: acdouglas

"acdouglas" wrote:
>>[snipped - original post is below]
>>I would also say that you can have superb quality and
>>not have your books published because the establishment is set against
>>you from the start.
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>That's pretty much a (generally) self-serving myth. There are some 50,000
>(fifty thousand) new titles published in print each year. My guess would be
>that very, very few "superb quality" mss get missed.

This is theory, and it doesn't map well into the real world. A
real-life example:
I published my book in Croatia and got excellent reviews in the papers
(see reviews on Amazon). I can choose between the best publishers in
the country. However, when I sent the manuscript of the English
version of my book to the American publishers, do you know what
happened? None of them even bothered to read it. From one, I actually
got a letter saying more-less that they can't bother with reading it
because their schedule is full, and if I'm stupid and incompetent
enough, I can try again next year, so that they'll have the pleasure
of not reading it again.

Now, what would you suggest me to do, eh? What I did was to have my
Croatian publisher open an account with the LightningSource and set
the book up for PoD. And even now, I need to find a way to create
public awareness of the book because it will otherwise vanish in the
ocean of other books.

>Is it really tough to break into print for a new author?

Almost impossible, even if you are damn good.

>But a vanity press is not the answer.

Of course it is not the answer, but it can be a good beginning. The
answer seems to be in a combination of a good manuscript, good
editing, PoD printing and distribution, and a heavily financed
marketing campaign.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Richard Henry

"Richard Henry" wrote:
>> >Hammond is a crackpot BTW.
>>
>> Of course he is, I just wanted to see if he's able to identify the
>> mistakes in his theory when they are clearly pointed out. He's not,
>> which makes me think that he gets fuel for his ego through the idea
>> that he's the one to make a hystorical breakthrough in the history of
>> religion and science. :) It's not likely that he'll accept that his
>> theory is worthless.
>
>Of course not. That's why he is a crackpot.

It seems that every place on the globe has several of the kind; in
Croatia, we have one guy who keeps stalking the maths professors at
the university in Zagreb and tries to tell them that he managed to
calculate the pi to the last decimal. He keeps complaining that they
are all narrow-minded and dogmatic.
There's another guy who claims that he's invented antigravity and can
make a flying saucer, he just needs a couple of millions of dollars in
order to make a prototype. Every now and then there's a guy who
invents a perpetuum mobile. Oh well. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: acdouglas

"acdouglas" wrote:
>As for vanity presses, print or digital (no difference): When one has to pay,
>rather than be paid, to have one's ms turned into a book for distribution, be
>it print or digital, that's the vanity press route, and it's for failed
>writers only.

Theoretically, this is true. In real life, it equalizes failed and
non-established writers, because the publishers are more likely to
print a lousy book written by an established author, than a great book
written by an unknown author. In fact, an unknown author would be
lucky if he even got his manuscripts read.
So, what can a non-established author do, stand in the rain in front
of the closed doors, or try to do something about it? I agree that
most self-published authors have an overrated opinion of their writing
abilities, but I would also say that you can have superb quality and
not have your books published because the establishment is set against
you from the start.
Also, it is possible to print a superb book and not be able to sell
it, because it is not advertised, while the junk sells in huge
quantities, because it's well known, advertised all over the place.
People will buy it and throw it away and buy something similar
tomorrow.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Brian

"Brian" wrote:
>Hi Danijel,
>You're absolutely right about God etc.
>That's why I all myself a deist.

:)

>Hammond is a crackpot BTW.

Of course he is, I just wanted to see if he's able to identify the
mistakes in his theory when they are clearly pointed out. He's not,
which makes me think that he gets fuel for his ego through the idea
that he's the one to make a hystorical breakthrough in the history of
religion and science. :) It's not likely that he'll accept that his
theory is worthless.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>[Hammond]
>Right... the hardware is God, what you're not aware of is
>that the human brain is "upgrading" all the time (brain growth)
>and that it's upgrading bigtime over historical times
>(called the Secular Trend)...that's why your theory of God is
>wrong, and mine is right.

Actually, I think that you're totally incapable of perceiving any
portion of information that doesn't fit your tiny agenda. Obviously,
you don't even know what I'm talking about, because, in your limited
perception, you took something out of context, built your theory about
it, and there's no way anyone could reach you with logic.

>[Hammond]
>No, I got a better experiment. we will press the Nuclear Buttons
>on both sides of the Atlantic, and after we are all dead, you tell
>me how you are going to prove that there is still and "external
>reality"?

Many people die each day and the world doesn't change much. Obviously
their brains didn't create a thing. So, I would assume that if we all
die, that the universe wouldn't change much, at least from the
perspective of a couple of millions of probably existing intelligent
alien species throughout those billions of cubic lightyears of space.
And even if all reasonable lifeforms died, there would probably still
be plants and insects who could testify that the universe exists
because they interact with it. And long before any life existed, there
was universe, and it was always known because there was God who could
know it. So, even if the thought that you create God with your brain
flatters your ego, I must tell you that the only thing that your brain
apparently creates, is the bondage of illusions within which you live.

>[Hammond]
>Only idiots sit around and discuss "definitions of God".

Then apparently you still need to evolve to the stage of an idiot.
Why am I talking to you anyway, you're a fanatic on a holy crusade.
Bye-bye.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Phoenix (tm)

"Phoenix (tm)" wrote:
>>> Ne. Vise voli onu zarulju koja ju ne iskoristava :))))
>>
>>Pa, ako malo otvoris novi zavjet, vidjet ces da tamo bas i nema
>>spomena o nagradi za one koji ne uzmu; zapravo, u njihovom kontekstu
>>se spominje da ce im se oduzeti i ono malo sto imaju, i da ce ih se
>>baciti u oganj pakleni i tako to. :)
>
> Ma znam tocno na koji citat mislis ali meni se cini da ti nisi
>primijetio one smajlice na kraju posta :)

Jesam, ali uz svu tu stoku koja pise netematske poruke cijelo vrijeme,
mora netko pisati i nesto tematsko. ;>>>>

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
> My discovery proves that the Secular Trend in
>brain growth is the physical cause of God.

Actually, this is such a good joke that I must improve on it:

I have a scientific proof of God's existence. Actually, his existence
can be personally proved by anyone. God definitely exists. He grows
bigger when the rain falls, and he doesn't like the droughts. The
occasional dog can pee on him, too, and he doesn't seem to object.

No, I didn't suddenly go crazy; I just defined "God" as "the tree in
my back yard". :))

This tells you the importance of a good definition before you start
proving anything.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> Actually, I never mentioned the brain; I talked about God and the
>> Universe.
>
>[Hammond]
>No, I know you didn't. Actually I just seized on your idea
>of the difference between the "program" and the "computer"
>as being a very good way to explain what God is. so I've
>simply modified and adapted the idea to explain my scientific
>discovery.

You modified it and turned it into something ridiculous, which I would
never say.

> The thing that throws most people about "God" is that he is
>"supernormal"...

Transcendental is a better word.

> What you do is say the computer is the human brain,

Nope, I never said it. I never actually talked about human brain,
because it is utterly irrelevant in this matter. I talked about the
fundamental reality, and I said that the reality of this universe is
secondary, not primary. I said that it is an arbitrary reality,
founded in a deeper reality, which is God. It is true that human brain
can create its own virtual realities, such as dreams, and this analogy
was indeed often used in ancient India to describe the thing with the
virtual universe - God dreaming the world, that sort of thing.

>and the
>program running on it is "reality".

"Reality" indeed, but not reality.

>OK, the program is not
>aware that it is running on the computer, so if you suddenly
>upgrade the computer with a faster processor and more memory,
>the program thinks it's a "miracle".

Actually, I don't see what you're trying to prove, I only see that it
is completely unrelated with what I wanted to say. In my analogy, you
can't upgrade the hardware, because the hardware is God, the
fundamental reality. However, you can run several programs
simultaneously, you can install several operating systems and you can
even run viruses. These are all events on a secondary layer of the
reality, which is equivalent to our universe - in this analogy, our
universe is merely one application among many. It is arbitrary, in a
sense that it could be different in any way. But, this application
manifests the quality of the computer, in its own way.

>What a scientific proof
>of God does, is includes a scientific discovery of the computer into
>the program, so now, "God" and "miracles" are explained within
>the program.

Actually, your "proof" isn't at all scientific, it is pure bullshit.

First of all, you didn't define God, so your "proof" is meaningless,
QED. But, let's get to the next part. You imply that God has a cause
in human brain. Since any good definition of God defines God as
causeless, if you did prove anything, it isn't God, QED.
It is fairly obvious that if you increase the physical brain, that its
capacity will also grow. This proves that intelligence of a species is
proportional to the size of the brain (actually, it's about brain
matter per body size, but let's ignore that as irrelevant), which is
actually a thing that any school kid can tell you; frogs have small
brains and humans have big brains and that's why humans send
spacecrafts on Mars and frogs don't. If you think that this is a proof
of God, you are an idiot. (QED)
So, you actually provided evidence that the average IQ grows when the
brain increases. Wow, this knowledge will really shake the world as we
know it. ;>

>snip
>
>> As for your strange interpretation of my analogy, allow me to correct
>> it.
>>
>> God can be compared to the computer, running a program called the
>> Universe. Normal behavior of the program is called natural law, but
>> any intervention from a deeper layer, that affects the behavior of the
>> program, is called miracle.
>
>{Hammond]
>No, allow me to correct you.

You mean, to distort a thing or two in order to feed your monomania?

>"Upgrading" the computer is what
>a "miracle" is.

Which "computer", the brain or God? ;)
If you're talking about the brain, I can agree that there are limits
to human understanding of the world, and the size of the brain and the
IQ probably contribute to that understanding, meaning, if you have a
frog's brain, your understanding of the reality will probably be
lousy, and if you have a human brain, it will improve dramatically. It
is reasonable to assume that our current brain size isn't the
theoretical maximum and therefore that our understanding of the
reality can be improved. But, this tells nothing about God, it can
only tell about our knowledge of God, and even this only if you're an
optimist; most people don't know God any better than the chimps,
regardless of their bigger brains. They mostly care about eating and
having sex, and the only purpose of the bigger brain is to complicate
their lives to the maximum.

>My discovery proves that the Secular Trend in
>brain growth is the physical cause of God.

Your "discovery" proves that you have no knowledge of neither logic
nor philosophy nor theology nor scientific methodology.
God can be defined either as Absolute, or as the origin of the causal
chain. In neither case it has a cause. This demonstrates both that
your logic sucks, and that you haven't the foggiest idea about what
God would be. QED.

>In the computer
>analogy, this is equivalent to putting in a faster processor
>and increasing the memory.

I suggest that you increase your memory and add a better CPU. Also,
you should replace the cooler on your CPU because your circuits seem
to be overheating. ;>

>> And just to mention, the existence of God doesn't imply the
>> creationist theories.
>
>[Hammond]
>Yes it does. The computer (human brain) is running the program
>called "reality".

Well, yours certainly seems to do so; your "reality" seems to be only
a result of your brain playing strange tricks on you.

>So now comes the question of "what is the age of the
>Universe".

No, in fact now comes the question "how did we come to the matters of
cosmology from a claim that reality is merely a creation within our
brains?" If the reality exists only within our brains, why not go a
step further: we're all just apes abducted by aliens who want to test
the potential of that species by plugging us into their virtual
reality machine, so we think that we're humans and that we're talking
on the news, while we're in fact on an alien spaceship in the Earth's
orbit.
This of course sounds utterly silly, but it can't be disproved if we
say that our physical perceptions don't have a solid foundation in at
least the physical reality. If we're making it up, then we can't tell
if we, ourselves, are real. Actually, I can say that I'm real, but
you're not; I'm just dreaming this whole thing up and you all are
merely figments of my vivid imagination.
Your theory, again, goes bye-bye.

>OK, the program says the Universe is 15-billion years
>old (reality).

This is based on the assumption that the observation of the reality is
a psychological artefact and that it has no foundation in the outward
reality.

>However, we know the computer (human brain) is
>only a few thousands of years old (Homo sapiens Sapiens), therefore
>reality can't be any older than that.

:)))) This is the stupidest piece of shit that I ever saw anywhere, if
the audience doesn't mind me saying so.
The physical reality existed from the time this universe was created,
till now, and it will continue to exist until this universe somehow
ceases to exist. Human perception of this universe is variable, and
depends on human possibility to perceive and to interpret perception.
This has nothing to do with the fact that the world exists outside our
minds. If you say otherwise, we can arrange an experiment. I'll take a
brick and hit you on the head with it. If this experiment hurts you,
this means that the brick exists outside of your brain. However, if
you still disagree, we can continue the experiment until the brick and
your brain merge into one, and then I will agree with you that the
brick exists only within your head. ;>>
(now kids, don't try this at home, I'm just scoring points:)
To conclude, it's one thing what the reality is, and the other thing
is what can we know about it. Obviously, we can know something about
it, and it is definitely real. Therefore the physical reality isn't
confined within our brains, as you suggest, and this makes the rest of
your theory worthless; QED, again.
However, this doesn't mean that this physical reality isn't contained
within a higher reality, and any good definition of God would imply
this as necessary; so, this reality can be secondary, but our brains
can by no means be a primary reality, or, mathematically said, if the
reality index of this universe is n, where a greater number means a
greater distance from the ultimate reality, God must be 0, and the
position of our subjective reality can vary between 0 and infinite,
where the infinite value means total delusion and zero contact with
the reality (I met some people who are very advanced in that respect),
and 0 means the realization of God as the greatest reality of our
being, which is sometimes called enlightenment, and sometimes
self-realization. So, our personal reality can be less real than our
world (which is called either daydreaming or madness, depending on the
degree), but it can also be more real than our world, if we identify
with a deeper layer of the reality.

(do you guys follow me here or am I just talking to myself? :)

> the OEC's say it's 15-billion and the YEC's say it's thousands.
>Point is, they are both right, both scientifically absolutely
>right. The Creationists are in fact scientifically correct that
>the Universe did not exist more than a few thousands of years ago.

The conclusion is, in fact, that your conclusions aren't worth the
bandwidth they consume.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

Slucajno sam naletio na ovo:

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit

Je li moguce da je to autenticno?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org