From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Mar 11 19:32:10 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LhaiQ-0002tT-QR for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:32:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:32:10 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Spending money on getting people to penguicon. Message-ID: <20090312023210.GX11968@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20090305191021.GE27391@digitalkingdom.org> <49B03EEA.3050305@lojban.org> <20090305212839.GI27391@digitalkingdom.org> <49B0473D.2060508@lojban.org> <20090305214356.GJ27391@digitalkingdom.org> <49B06356.9080901@lojban.org> <20090305235619.GO27391@digitalkingdom.org> <49B789EF.8060402@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49B789EF.8060402@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-archive-position: 495 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board I don't have the emotional energy to argue with your book-length tirades, so this'll be shorter than usual. On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:52:47AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> 10%? We're not using the money for anything. What are you >> saving the 90% *for*? > > At one time you mentioned that we might have to start paying a > commercial server to handle lojban.org. I can't imagine that this > would be cheap. I'm covering it myself; it's about a hundred a month. > I assume we eventually intend to publish a dictionary, and/or > republish CLL. CLL cost us $17500 last time, and a dictionary > would likely be worse. LS might be cheaper for a softcover, but > I don't recall that they do "real" books of the sort that > libraries put on their shelves. ... Dude, *lulu* does "real" books: http://annathered.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/my-charaben-book/ http://www.lulu.com/en/products/hardcover/?cid=en_product_portal And lulu is the bastard stepchild of the publishing world. In fact, in 2004 I sent mail to the board about LS's hardcover offerings. Anways, their prices are at https://www.lightningsource.com/ops/files/pricing/USPricing.BW.pdf Looks like it'll cost us about $100, as before. > And I still keep hoping someone will start putting out a snail > mail newsletter/JL again, though that hope seems forelorn unless > I do it myself. But a few thousand of our bank balance is > technically money owed to account holders and subscribers that we > in theory should be paying back with publications. We also owe > $1000 to Perry Smith, even though I don't know how to reach him > (if he is still alive, he probably lives near Matt, since he > worked for the Mathematics Association of America in Ann Arbor). I would be more than happy to do the arrangements on such a thing, but I'm not going to go produce all the content. > A single press release to promote a new book will likely run $500, > based on the fact that it ran over $300 last time. Why would we do such a thing? > JCB spent around $2000 for his last advertisement in Scientific > American, a splurge I could never justify with our own cash flow See above. > In short, big money is needed to promote the language wholesale, > something we have never tried because I couldn't in good > conscience do so without a dictionary in print. Exactly. > I paid for it myself last time, but sending just two people to a > Worldcon, and selling books at a table would cost us well over > $1000, but would give us enormously more exposure than LogFest, > which is being held at a small local convention. Where did that $1000 number come from? That seems to be entirely ficticious. > I guess I'm not as confident that spending a large chunk of money > for a couple of individuals to attend LogFest will promote the > language all that much. This isn't about promoting the language, it's about supporting the community. > I wouldn't think that LogFest itself is worth more than 10% of > our annual budget given the small percentage of the existing > community it serves. If it became a bigger deal, perhaps it would > be worthwhile spending more, but I doubt that it will. OK. I don't see that you in any way answered my question as to what you wanted to spend the money on (the numbers you gave had nothing to do with reality except for the things you said we weren't going to do anyways). Regardless, that's a no vote. I vote yes. Arnt? -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/