QUOTE(radek @ Thu 21st July 2011, 11:40pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
It's probably true that most publishers don't make money from academic work, but then again, most ice skaters don't make money from ice skating. What's your point? We're not talking about some zines here, but big publishing houses like Elsevier.
They make up a tiny, tiny minority. I already demonstrated examples of the true exemplars of academic journals. They are done by universities at small level without millions of dollars and mostly printed on-demand. They sell books by the 100s, not the millions, and journals are no different.
QUOTE
Likewise I don't know what "on demand" journals you're reading but that's also not what we're talking about here (I don't even think those kind appear on JSTOR)
The Keats-Shelley Journal and those like it do appear on online databases. Most of those databases are used because of the small academic journals.
I think it is odd how you cling to Milton being correct when he is laughably wrong and contradicts himself. Then you attack me for not finishing my dissertation while acknowledging that I have a personal connection to the matter and you have no clue.
Somey, is it right that WR is being filled with the uninformed spouting whatever ignorance they can? Isn't that Wikipedia's major failing? I find it odd how those two are spouting off stuff that Gerard is spouting off. Can we just show them the door already?
I mean, look at this. Radek is either trolling or illiterate:
QUOTE
Don't be dishonest Ottava. He didn't say 2 million is the profit of "these groups", he said 2 million is the SALARY of one of the CEO's.
I never said that 2 million was the profit. There is no way to claim I did. "You provided the most profitable of all of these groups, and 2 million is the greatest figure?" That is what I said. It is clear that "2 million" referred to the CEO salary and the "most profitable" pointed to the company that would pay the most.
Then you have him outright lying:
"it is more than the CEO of Bank of America, Microsoft and a number of other big names make."
Because we all know that Bill Gates made 60 billion not running Microsoft, right? Or that the Bank of America individual being a brand new CEO was receiving all of his pay package there, right? Or that he didn't have to take a salary hit because BoA was involved in the bank bailout and there was a lot of negative press over CEO pay in the US. I mean, the nonsense behind it all is almost revolting. It is clear from looking at the list that not only do the majority of the CEOs make far more than 2 million dollars but the ones that don't tend to be making little because of political reasons or already made a lot as being stockholders (Steve Jobs, for example).
Then he says nonsense like this: "Huh? That's pretty funny coming from a guy who hasn't finished his dissertation."
Really, because he has even progressed through graduate school? Not from what anyone knows. Standard free kulture trolling.
This post has been edited by Ottava: