From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Dec 09 13:12:43 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PQnn4-0001xW-I4 for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:12:43 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.03.00 201-2260-125-20100507) with ESMTP id <20101209211227.BXIM10925.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:12:27 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id h9CL1f0073Xcbvq029CLiw; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:12:26 -0500 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=vKPgiZ/KMvQjd5qZIAoj/jSd1CCG4COa0qqLb66bE78= c=1 sm=1 a=K19LXTB21a0A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=upY8wuuS6MZOSeT-9cwA:9 a=WDzc5Wf-q3TcSma2AOsA:7 a=DHE2ptCcXM6LI59ok4txQim-EjgA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <4D01461A.2070301@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:11:54 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: I are *dumb*. References: <20101209180933.GC27025@digitalkingdom.org> <20101209190730.GF27025@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20101209190730.GF27025@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 751 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Yeah, that was when we had better options, i.e. your awesomeness. > :) > > That's no longer an option, and I'm very happy to eat the cost. > Hell, we can calculate it back in to the book cost. I don't think that would be necessary. The shipping cost is due to the sheer number of books. The per book cost is relatively small. > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:24:05AM -0800, Matt Arnold wrote: > >>I am overwhelmingly in favor. The only reason we weren't doing it >>already is that I knew how averse this group is to losing so much >>money to shipping them to a new fulfiller. We went to a lot of >>trouble to drive them out to me to avoid such costs. >> >>But if you're willing to accept the cost, I'll happily ship books >>to Amazon. I certainly agree that if we are going to start doing this, that Matt should send off his books, so he is completely out from under the gun, before worrying about sending mine. I don't know how many he has these days, and thus whether he should send them all or hold some back for a few months to save storage costs. (Gary is not driving up this Xmas, or he could bring any Matt wasn't sending back here). lojbab