clennell on sat 4 jan 03
As far as the food chain goes I think the tightwad is the bottom feeder.
I can almost understand a thief. He takes from you and therefore you will
need to replace. If it is your information that gets stolen you find a way
of protecting it or you just stop putting it out there.
The twit is the person that just trashes you or your property. No gain to
them, just a lose to you.
The tightwad is the person that never buys their own, just always borrows
yours. You still lose, but more often. Cheap people (tightwads) are the ones
i find the most objectionable.
We had a fabulous ceramics magazine called "Contact". What happened to
it????? Tightwads killed it. Local pottery guilds with memeberships of let's
say 200, 100, maybe 50 members would subscribe for one copy to be circulated
amongst members.. the members loved the mag. they would photocopy it and
circulate the good stuff. Circulation 3, readership 350. "Contact" DOA!
If the first member had stolen it, they'd have had to buy another one and on
and on. god, my first post of 2003 and the librarians of the world are going
to come gunning.
If you love someones work, do them a favour and either steal it or buy it.
Don't take their time, their energy, time and time again and not anti up.
Visit a potter and pick their brain- buy something. Develop a library of
good books- your own books bought and paid for. More good ones will be on
the horizon because the people that write them will have beer money, as well
as a warm fuzzy feeling.
I knew I should have stayed in the studio.
P.S I've been on Larry's twit list, stole an Eat More chocolate bar at age
10 and got caught, but I've never been a tightwad.
martin schiller on sat 4 jan 03
a msg from clennell@VAXXINE.COM on 1/4/03 1:01 PM included ...
>The tightwad is the person that never buys their own, just always borrows
>yours. You still lose, but more often. Cheap people (tightwads) are the ones
>i find the most objectionable.
I was just going to ask for someone to describe the features that make a
bourry-box kiln unique. I had done a google on 'bourry box' and found a
magazine called 'Studio Potter'. They wanted $6 for an issue that
contained an article about the b-box.
What to do - what to do... ;->
How much was 'contact' and when?
Les Crimp on sun 5 jan 03
I agree with Tony on this one. "Contact" was the best pottery magazine
printed at the time it went under. What a shame!
Les Crimp on Vancouver Island.
Suzanne Wolfe on sun 5 jan 03
Actually, I think the case here is theft rather than tight-waddedness (?).
Those of us who were subscribers to Contact (a great magazine, I agree),
and who did not get the copies that they had paid for when the magazine
went under, were robbed of those copies -- apparently by the Tony's
Even though Hawai'i is far away from Canada....
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Les Crimp wrote:
> I agree with Tony on this one. "Contact" was the best pottery magazine
> printed at the time it went under. What a shame!
martin schiller on mon 6 jan 03
Just received a 'wonderful' offlist message from an apparent clayart
subscriber who reports that they could not "...imagine you would be so
mean as not to send for it..." referring to the $6 issue of Studio
Just wanted to know what made a bourry box kiln unique. For now I'll just
surmise that it has something to do with the arrangement of the
To imagine - a craftsman failing in imagination...
June Perry on mon 6 jan 03
Tony, I don't think that readership versus purchase was the only cause of the
demise of the magazine. Those proportions are probably the same for a lot of
In my youthful career as a model, one of the magazines I worked for was
Seventeen, and the editor during one of the shoots said that their
advertising dollar was geared by readership and not sales alone. They figured
at that time, for every magazine sold, at least four other teenagers read it.
That pushed up the advertising revenue for the magazine and the ads are what
pays for magazines and not the sales. Same goes for newspapers. It costs more
to produce it than it costs us to buy it.
One could probably come up with more reasons why Contact went belly up, as
did another magazine I loved, New Zealand Potter (or was it Pottery in New
Zealand? It's been a few years!). Many potters whether they be full or part
time makers, serious hobbyists, or newbies, usually allow themselves just so
many publications and there's some hot competition out there with Ceramics
Monthly, Pottery in Australia, Ceramic Review, PMI, Clay Times, etc,etc.
I don't think anyone can know, without deep research into the matter, just
why a particular magazine goes belly up. Maybe they just didn't know how to
gather readership records and use that to promote more advertising dollars,
or maybe the public just felt there was better product out there, or a
combination of both.