On 1/2/2012 10:44 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their neighborhood.


None of which applies to an armed, Islamic fundamentalist ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/3/12 7:02 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
On 1/2/2012 11:44 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/2/12 10:20 PM, m II wrote:
A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of
flight.


Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of scientific
method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
velocity which isn't lethal.

Tell that to the next-of-kin of people who have been killed by bullets
falling from the sky.

Maybe you should've read the rest of my post, Doug.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

m II wrote:

Bull****! (sounds just like you, huh?)


No - it sounds just like you.


You thought the statement was attacking gun owners and lost your cool,
prematurely, before you realized what was being discussed.


No - I didn't think it was attacking gun owners. Too bad you can't just
lump my thoughts into your own private agenda as you have already tried to
do by bringing up the 2nd ammendment previously. Unfortunately for you,
this discussion does not cause me to loose my cool, because it's just not
that religeous of a topic for me.

Sorry - you lose again. Keep playing though...

--

-Mike-

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 1/2/2012 8:49 PM, Steve B wrote:

You can't fix
stupid, and stupid people are usually very fertile.

Your clowngressmen have been betting the farm upon that bit of truism for
about 40 years now.

There are farms left?

Steve

Points
I agree with you that MythBusters is not a reputable source of
scientific method.
I disagree that a bullet fired into an arc maintains it's velocity.
That is impossible (did I read that right?)
I agree that with certain arcs the bullet velocity would quite likely
still injure or kill somebody. Almost straight up it would still stop
vertical ascension (Is that politically correct to use?) at the apex of
the arc.

As an observation most people would not shoot anything straight up in
the air. It's too much strain on the back and neck.

---------------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...
Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
velocity which isn't lethal.

However, they determined that it is not all that easy to fire a gun
straight up into the air for most people, especially under the
influence
of alcohol which is how this practice usually occurs.

They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far off
of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
through
its arc and back to the ground.

In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
neighborhood.

In my opinion, anyone firing a gun (aside from at firing range at a
designated target) who isn't pointing it at something they intend to
kill, is one or both of the following. A. taking the risk of killing
something. B. a complete idiot.

Stick to one nickname so we can kick your ass again.

-----------
"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 23:27:04 -0500, "m II" wrote:

Bull****! (sounds just like you, huh?)

You thought the statement was attacking gun owners and lost your cool,
prematurely, before you realized what was being discussed.

You like being an asshole don't you? Does it come naturally or did you
have to practice at it? I'm betting it's hereditary.

-MIKE- wrote:


Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the
ground, will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching
terminal velocity which isn't lethal.

Have to differ on this point Mike. If I recall correctly, terminal velocity
of a bullet is somewhere around 100mph (150fps). Enough to be lethal.
Besides, there a too many documented cases of death from falling bullets to
suggest that terminal velocity is non-lethal. The Myth Busters conclusion
that straight up is non-lethal was based on bullets bouncing off a pig's
head, or only slightly penetrating the skin and then bouncing off when fired
at 160fps. Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world evidence
by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's head
compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a place
here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did not
consider.


They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far
off of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
through its arc and back to the ground.

I do not recall this conclusion and it did not appear in the web site I
viewed on this broadcast. Maybe I missed something?


In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
neighborhood.

Not at all. There is this thing called muzzle velocity which is much higher
than terminal velocity. Firing straight out into the neighborhood is much
more dangerous.


--

-Mike-

In article ,
Martin Eastburn wrote:
...snipped...
As far as the shots in the air - often there are deaths and sometimes
in a house. The bullet hits the ground at the same velocity as being
fired.
...snipped...

There is no question that a falling bullet can be dangerous, but it
does not reach the ground at muzzle velocity. The terminal velocity of
a bullet in the atmosphere varies with shape, caliber, and weight and
is in the neighborhood of a few hundred feet per second. A magnum
pistol muzzle velocity might be around 1500 fps and rifles can be upwards
of 3000fps.



--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 1/3/12 4:26 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the
ground, will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching
terminal velocity which isn't lethal.

Have to differ on this point Mike. If I recall correctly, terminal velocity
of a bullet is somewhere around 100mph (150fps). Enough to be lethal.
Besides, there a too many documented cases of death from falling bullets to
suggest that terminal velocity is non-lethal. The Myth Busters conclusion
that straight up is non-lethal was based on bullets bouncing off a pig's
head, or only slightly penetrating the skin and then bouncing off when fired
at 160fps. Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world evidence
by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's head
compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a place
here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did not
consider.


They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far
off of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
through its arc and back to the ground.

I do not recall this conclusion and it did not appear in the web site I
viewed on this broadcast. Maybe I missed something?


In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
neighborhood.

Not at all. There is this thing called muzzle velocity which is much higher
than terminal velocity. Firing straight out into the neighborhood is much
more dangerous.


The points you did apparently miss in the episode is that...
A. most bullets are not fired directly perpendicular to the earth, which
make the terminal velocity thing an almost moot point. Most are fired
at acute angles.
B. bullets fired at acute angles maintain most of their velocity, or a
velocity many, many times greater than terminal velocity, when returning
back to earth, making them very deadly.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Apparently, according to Wikipedia reporting the Mythbusters the
bullets shot straight up tumble and lose terminal velocity to the point
of non-fatal velocities.

More on this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire


------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...

On 1/3/12 4:26 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the
ground, will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching
terminal velocity which isn't lethal.

Have to differ on this point Mike. If I recall correctly, terminal
velocity
of a bullet is somewhere around 100mph (150fps). Enough to be
lethal.
Besides, there a too many documented cases of death from falling
bullets to
suggest that terminal velocity is non-lethal. The Myth Busters
conclusion
that straight up is non-lethal was based on bullets bouncing off a
pig's
head, or only slightly penetrating the skin and then bouncing off
when fired
at 160fps. Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world
evidence
by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's
head
compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a
place
here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did
not
consider.


They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far
off of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
through its arc and back to the ground.

I do not recall this conclusion and it did not appear in the web site
I
viewed on this broadcast. Maybe I missed something?


In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
neighborhood.

Not at all. There is this thing called muzzle velocity which is much
higher
than terminal velocity. Firing straight out into the neighborhood is
much
more dangerous.


The points you did apparently miss in the episode is that...
A. most bullets are not fired directly perpendicular to the earth,
which
make the terminal velocity thing an almost moot point. Most are fired
at acute angles.
B. bullets fired at acute angles maintain most of their velocity, or a
velocity many, many times greater than terminal velocity, when
returning
back to earth, making them very deadly.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world evidence
by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's head
compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a place
here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did not
consider.

I am not a doctor, but did attend college when I thought I wanted to be one.
The major human skull bones form from the outside inward, in a circle,
meeting at the apex or crown. There is the frontal bone (forehead),
occipital bone (back of the skull), and two parietal bones, which are two
halves if you will, the line running front to back. At birth, there is a
"soft spot" on infants, some very pronounced where you can see the heartbeat
through the thin skin where there is very little or no bone. It takes a
time for the two parietal bones to grow together and meet in the middle. I
do not know the ending thickness of the top of the skull with regard to the
thicknesses in other areas of the skull, but I would imagine that since it
has to grow together, the ending thickness would not be that thick. I have
seen post mortem skulls with fatal head wounds, and the skull in that area
is in some cases 1/8" thick or so, oddly, depending upon the race of the
person. A falling piece of lead would easily penetrate. It is also
interesting that a lot of head wounds by bullets through these areas have
both an entrance and exit wound, which would indicate not much bone mass. I
have dissected fetal pigs, but we did not do cranials on them. AND, oddly
enough, I have never ever ever read of a pig being killed by a falling
bullet. Makes one a little paranoid, eh? ;-)

Steve

On 1/3/12 10:54 PM, Steve B wrote:
A falling piece of lead would easily penetrate.

Bow do you know this?

I've seen other experiments testing the urban myth of pennies being
thrown off the empire state building killing people below. The tests
showed that the penny barely broke the skin. More tests were done on
heavier and more aerodynamic objects, including bullets and they did
little more that cause some bleeding.

I think in an ideal situation, with the bullet hitting point down on the
perfect part of the human skull, it could crack the skull, but not
penetrate. Of course, as has been pointed out, this in not the situation
in which people are being killed by "celebratory gun fire."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
On 1/3/12 10:54 PM, Steve B wrote:
A falling piece of lead would easily penetrate.

Bow do you know this?

Google "falling bullet fatalities". You are right to question me and not
believe anything I say.

And check your spelchekr.

The human skull is only 2mm thick in places on an adult human. That's
0.0787". Google human skull thickness to find those figures, but the terms
and words may be a little difficult to navigate. Just look for the numbers.

Steve ;-)

On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p

I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.

--
My momma taught me two things about life:
1. Never tell them everything you know;

To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/4/12 11:39 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p

I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.


The older I get, the less I care about what douche-bags in some
newsgroup think about me.

Google+ on the other hand.... :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 12:41 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 11:39 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p

I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.


The older I get, the less I care about what douche-bags in some newsgroup think
about me.

Google+ on the other hand.... :-)

I hope you're not calling me a douche-bag. Don't forget, I'm not afraid to use
the other "D" word on you! :-)

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Steve Turner wrote the following:
On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p

I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.



Hell, you would hate to read my posts if I didn't use the 'spell check
as I type' feature and actually read the message a couple of times
before I post it. :-)
I used to be able to type and write with no problems, but with dementia,
left arm nerve damage, and dyslectic typing coming on in the last few
years, it's impossible to type legibly. 74 YO.
For those reasons, I don't critique anyone else's typing unless in humor.

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On 1/4/12 1:22 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 12:41 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 11:39 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p

I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.


The older I get, the less I care about what douche-bags in some
newsgroup think
about me.

Google+ on the other hand.... :-)

I hope you're not calling me a douche-bag. Don't forget, I'm not afraid
to use the other "D" word on you! :-)


I would expect no less!


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking his
chain. :-)

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/4/12 11:15 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
his chain. :-)


Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.

--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 11:22 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 11:15 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
his chain. :-)


Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.

He also knows how to get my goat. I don't think I'll ever get the damn thing back.

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
his chain. :-)


Just wanted you (plural) to know that I'm not one of those netnannying
nitpicking English majors. I weld, and the best weldor I ever saw could not
read or write. But he could take two pieces of 40' long pipe, a sheet of
paper, and a match book, and cut any angle to make the two pieces intersect
with minimal fitting. I am amused sometimes by common words that the
spelchekr lets pass because they are common, just out of context. I know
there are some grammar programs, such as in Word, that will let you know if
something's not stated right, or that might catch it, but I guess they
haven't got to Usenet posters yet. I find it far better to talk about doing
things rather than picking apart someone's writing. I know a lot of very
smart people who are confused about which end of a screwdriver goes in your
hand.

Steve

"-MIKE-" wrote

Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.

--

-MIKE-

Put it out here. I got a new cable puller I'm dying to try
out............... not to worry, it's a small one ....................

Steve

On 1/5/12 9:42 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 11:22 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/4/12 11:15 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
his chain. :-)


Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.

He also knows how to get my goat. I don't think I'll ever get the damn
thing back.


I'm sure you are just passive aggressive enough to have something
brewing up on the back burner for me at a some later date. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/5/12 11:45 AM, Steve B wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
Bow do you know this?

And check your spelchekr.


I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
his chain. :-)


Just wanted you (plural) to know that I'm not one of those netnannying
nitpicking English majors. I weld, and the best weldor I ever saw could not
read or write. But he could take two pieces of 40' long pipe, a sheet of
paper, and a match book, and cut any angle to make the two pieces intersect
with minimal fitting. I am amused sometimes by common words that the
spelchekr lets pass because they are common, just out of context. I know
there are some grammar programs, such as in Word, that will let you know if
something's not stated right, or that might catch it, but I guess they
haven't got to Usenet posters yet. I find it far better to talk about doing
things rather than picking apart someone's writing. I know a lot of very
smart people who are confused about which end of a screwdriver goes in your
hand.

Steve


I'm pretty certain we're all just joking around.
....and I just can resist....

"haven't got"
should be "haven't gotten" :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/5/2012 11:45 AM, Steve B wrote:

Just wanted you (plural) to know that I'm not one of those
netnannying nitpicking English majors.I weld, and the best
weldor ...

^^^^^^

Comment, either for or again, grammatical and speeling usuage and ur
bount to make a misteak yourslef.

LOL


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Swingman" wrote

Comment, either for or again, grammatical and speeling usuage and ur bount
to make a misteak yourslef.

Old english teacher karma??

I had a friend who wrote a number of small books and every time he published
one of them, he would get inundated with letters pointing out grammar and
spelling errors in the book. They were far more interested in this that
what he wrote about.

So on the very first page of each book written after that he had a huge
print disclaimer concerning errors. He made it clear that a large number of
people are obsessed with errors. They only read books to find the errors.
So he purposely included the errors in his books to meet these folk's needs.
So don't write him and tell him about the errors. He knew they were there.
He put them in the book just for them. If they wanted to write and talk
about the book subject matter, fine. But no error letters.

It worked. And he got a number of letter complimenting him on his Error
Memorandum.

On 1/5/2012 12:42 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

I had a friend who wrote a number of small books and every time he
published one of them, he would get inundated with letters pointing out
grammar and spelling errors in the book. They were far more interested
in this that what he wrote about.

So on the very first page of each book written after that he had a huge
print disclaimer concerning errors. He made it clear that a large number
of people are obsessed with errors. They only read books to find the
errors. So he purposely included the errors in his books to meet these
folk's needs. So don't write him and tell him about the errors. He knew
they were there. He put them in the book just for them. If they wanted
to write and talk about the book subject matter, fine. But no error
letters.

It worked. And he got a number of letter complimenting him on his Error
Memorandum.

Clever!

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:45:31 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/5/2012 12:42 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

I had a friend who wrote a number of small books and every time he
published one of them, he would get inundated with letters pointing out
grammar and spelling errors in the book. They were far more interested
in this that what he wrote about.

So on the very first page of each book written after that he had a huge
print disclaimer concerning errors. He made it clear that a large number
of people are obsessed with errors. They only read books to find the
errors. So he purposely included the errors in his books to meet these
folk's needs. So don't write him and tell him about the errors. He knew
they were there. He put them in the book just for them. If they wanted
to write and talk about the book subject matter, fine. But no error
letters.

It worked. And he got a number of letter complimenting him on his Error
Memorandum.

Clever!

Brilliant, but why didn't this brilliant guy GET AND USE A DAMNED
SPELLCHECKER? g

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

P-r-o-f-f-e-s-i-o-n-a-l B-a-c-k-p-a-d-d-l-e


--------------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Brilliant, but why didn't this brilliant guy GET AND USE A DAMNED
SPELLCHECKER? g