Edit Ink (Bill Appel, Denise Sterrs)

[roach]

Why does the phrase "thar she blows!" come to mind when I'm reading Mr. Cynical's posts?

Posts rarely get deleted at AW. The only cases I can think of (outside of the original poster deleting his post) are due to spam.

I think my favorite part is:

in the future you should refrain from kissing and telling

after having done his own bit in that department. Another phrase comes to mind, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Anyway, the rest of his posts, including the noxious "art > people", provides no reason to believe he really knows what he's talking about. I'll check the box next to "Stirring up trouble just for the heck of it."

 

[Gravity]

Whatever your personal accomplishments, both sexual and/or editorial, Mister Cynical, you're a boor. Worse, a boring boor, and I'm not sure that's a fixable condition. At any rate, I'm sure you'll find the replies to you on this thread will quickly thin out, and you'll move on. Best of luck.

PS: that's my real name in my sig. One pro to another.

 

[JennaGlatzer]

Hi Tad. Just one question...

So, you turned down the Buffalo gig. You worked from home, where they mailed you manuscripts.

Yet you had sex with Kelley all over the (Buffalo) office and parking lot?

 

[James D. Macdonald]

Here we see a type-specimen Usenet Troll. The chance that there's any truth in Tad's posts is about 0.002348%. Ignore it; it'll move along to other hunting grounds.

 

[aka eraser]

Pretty soon Tad will lash out, as cornered rats are wont to do. He'll do something ban-worthy, or at least delete-worthy and then slink off to another corner of the net.

 

[Tad Cynical]

I'm wondering, Mr. Cynical (or maybe Ms. Cynical--who knows, maybe Kelley was bi): what's your beef? You don't seem to be attempting to persuade us that Edit Ink was not a scam. So why the 'tude?

- Victoria

Hi Victoria. Long time no see. I hope that you and Ann are well.

You are correct: I'm not attempting to defend Bill and Denise, although I'll cop to admiring their criminal ingenuity. I commented merely because I found Mr Warner's article whiny and self-serving. Sexually harassed by Kelley Culmer: I mean, my God.

If nothing else, consider: if Edit Ink was a scam, it was a scam because unqualified editors edited MS for Edit Ink. Mr Warner was one of those unqualified editors. What has he done to make restitition to those he helped scam? Other than writing an article on the subject to further his alleged career, obviously, an article in which he declaims any responsibility for what occurred. It's shameful.

 

[Matthew Warner]

If nothing else, consider: if Edit Ink was a scam, it was a scam because unqualified editors edited MS for Edit Ink.

It was also a scam because of its numerous violations of truth-in-advertising laws, as detailed in my article.

Mr Warner was one of those unqualified editors. What has he done to make restitition to those he helped scam?

By your logic, everyone who worked at Enron should be serving time in jail, regardless of whether they had any actual or willful participation in the wrongdoing. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I wasn't one of the scammers and didn't realize it was a scam when I was there, therefore I don't owe any restitution. I do hope, though, that the information in my article helps writers to identify and thus avoid these types of operations. Does that answer your question?

 

[Tad Cynical]

Hi Tad. Just one question...

So, you turned down the Buffalo gig. You worked from home, where they mailed you manuscripts.

Yet you had sex with Kelley all over the (Buffalo) office and parking lot?

Hi Jenna.

You want details, do you? I went to Bufflo and stayed a week; I combined Edit Ink business with a visit to my brother, who lived in Snyder and still does. He had just had his first child, a girl. She's 13 now. Regarding Kelley: one time on the floor of Bill's office in front of the fish tank. Several times in several different parking lots, none of them Appels. Bill and Denise didn't really have a parking lot per se. They had a house with a driveway. A couple of cheap motels. Once in the car parked in front of my brother's house. Maybe a few other times, I don't recall.

And regarding the frequency, well, I was something of a younger man then. These days it's three times tops, and then I have to have a nap.

You're not going to trip me up Jenna. Only insane people feel the need to lie to strangers on the interweb. I'm not insane. Not yet anyway.

 

[Brad05]

Only insane people feel the need to lie to strangers on the interweb. I'm not insane. Not yet anyway.

Only insane people claim to be high level professionals and then go on a message board and brag like a pubescent schoolboy about their probably non-existent sexual escapades. I wonder if your boss would like to know how you spend your time online?

PS POD publishers don't have revenues of $20 billion.

I thought you said British Pounds. That there's a dollar sign, mister great editor.

Dick.

 

[victoriastrauss]

If nothing else, consider: if Edit Ink was a scam, it was a scam because unqualified editors edited MS for Edit Ink.

True. It was also a scam because of its undisclosed relationship with the agencies and publishers that referred to it. Not to mention the kickbacks. And of course there were the fake agencies that Edit Ink set up to refer more manuscripts its way.

You chide Matthew for not figuring it out right away (according to his article, it took him two months to bail--not exactly an eternity). Part of your rationale for that is that you say you realized what was going on as soon as you saw the operation in action in Buffalo. But how long were you getting manuscripts in the mail before that? I can believe you got some decent stuff, but you must also have gotten some stinkers. Didn't it seem a bit odd that a supposedly reputable editing firm would accept uneditable crap? Didn't your spidey-sense tingle just a little?

Edit Ink was a sleazy scam that deserves to be exposed. I'd say I was puzzled by your attitude, but I suspect that you're one of those people for whom the scams are a kind of Darwinian process that winnows out the unfit.

- Victoria

 

[Tad Cynical]

I . . . didn't realize it was a scam when I was there . . . I do hope, though, that the information in my article helps writers to identify and thus avoid these types of operations.

I hardly think that your inability to recognize that the people you were working and socializing with were con artists qualifies you to advise others on how best to avoid con artists.

Does that answer your question?

I didn't really ask you any questions Mr Warner. I merely stated that I thought you were whiny and I pointed out that this -- "Every once in a while, I asked her out [but] she refused . . . I tried to pull her aside [but] she refused to speak to me ... I could almost feel the psychic furnace of hatred radiating from her" -- hardly describes someone sexually harassing you. In fact, quite the opposite. Stop playing the victim.

 

[Tad Cynical]

Only insane people claim to be high level professionals and then go on a message board and brag like a pubescent schoolboy about their probably non-existent sexual escapades. I wonder if your boss would like to know how you spend your time online?

Are you threatening me Brad? That's not very nice. In any event, I'm off this week, and my employer doesn't much care what I do when I'm not working.

I thought you said British Pounds. That there's a dollar sign, mister great editor..

Learn to read for comprehension Brad: it will help you in your writing endeavors. First I said two thousand million british pounds. Then in another post I said twenty billion american dollars. I believe those are equivalent figures.

Dick.

Dick? I thought your name was Brad. Although Dick does seems more appropriate. I knew I guy named Richard once, you remind me of him.

 

[Matthew Warner]

I hardly think that your inability to recognize that the people you were working and socializing with were con artists qualifies you to advise others on how best to avoid con artists.

Eh, your opinion. If I based my article about Edit Ink solely on my interaction with them, then I would agree with you.

I didn't really ask you any questions Mr Warner. I merely stated that I thought you were whiny and I pointed out that this -- "Every once in a while, I asked her out [but] she refused . . . I tried to pull her aside [but] she refused to speak to me ... I could almost feel the psychic furnace of hatred radiating from her" -- hardly describes someone sexually harassing you. In fact, quite the opposite.

On our side of the ocean, supervisor-employee relations is sexual harrassment by definition, regardless of any implied consent. So is retaliation for said relations and/or an atmosphere of hostility that in any way stems from those relations. This isn't my specialty of jurisprudence, but I think I have the gist of it right. The article wasn't about the sex, though. I only told the story in the interests of full disclosure--which is more than I can say for you and your cowardly pseudonym.

 

[Matthew Warner]

P.S.

By the way, I should mention that the only thing that actually upsets me about this whole discussion is calling me a "wannabe writer." And here I was thinking that my review in last Monday's Publishers Weekly was some type of an achievement. I guess I'll have to try harder.

 

[Tilly]

Matthew, you might find this book detailing another literary scam interesting given your personal experiences:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809325756/?tag=absolutewritedm-20

 

[Matthew Warner]

Matthew, you might find this book detailing another literary scam interesting given your personal experiences:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809325756/sr=1-1/qid=1153767878/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3805868-2155359?ie=UTF8&s=books

Thanks, I'll check it out. SFWA also has a good writeup on them at http://www.sfwa.org/beware/cases.html#Deering

 

[Tad Cynical]

True. It was also a scam because of its undisclosed relationship with the agencies and publishers that referred to it. Not to mention the kickbacks. And of course there were the fake agencies that Edit Ink set up to refer more manuscripts its way.

Interesting. Because according to the article Mr. Warner knew about the referrals from the agents and knew about the kickbacks to the agents and heard Bill repeating the same sales spiel over and over and knew that the MS he and everybody else were reading and laughing about at the office were "putrid" and "horrible" and saw his boon companion Kelley keeping the ledger and knew Denise that drove a Jaguar and on and on and on. In fact, there doesn't seem to have been any aspect of the enterprise of which he was unaware. Except that it was illegal. Convenient that.

You chide Matthew for not figuring it out right away (according to his article, it took him two months to bail--not exactly an eternity).

He didn't bail Victoria: he was fired.

"Bill summoned me back to his den . . he was firing me."

Part of your rationale for that is that you say you realized what was going on as soon as you saw the operation in action in Buffalo. But how long were you getting manuscripts in the mail before that? I can believe you got some decent stuff, but you must also have gotten some stinkers. Didn't it seem a bit odd that a supposedly reputable editing firm would accept uneditable crap? Didn't your spidey-sense tingle just a little?

Actually no. It was my first editing gig. I had no idea what sort of MS editing firms received. In fact, before I started there I didn't even know there was such a thing as an editing firm. But it would seem logical that editing firms received bad books. And they were bad: most of them were offal. But I don't have too high an opinion of people, so that they're all barely literate was no great surprise. Sure, every once in a while there was a good one. But here's how little I knew about what they were doing in Buffalo: I recommended that they take two for representation. They were so few and far between that I still remember them: a holocaust survivor's non fiction book about the history of Jewish humor and a brilliantly written scifi thing.

Edit Ink was a sleazy scam that deserves to be exposed. I'd say I was puzzled by your attitude, but I suspect that you're one of those people for whom the scams are a kind of Darwinian process that winnows out the unfit.

I don't disagree with your assessment of EI. And your assessment of my attitude toward winnowing is spot on. Darwin. No argument. Again, my comments are addressed only toward the self serving whiny look-at-me-i'm-victim tone of the piece.

 

[Brad05]

Learn to read for comprehension Brad: it will help you in your writing endeavors. First I said two thousand million british pounds. Then in another post I said twenty billion american dollars. I believe those are equivalent figures.

bzzzt. wrong.

two thousand million is a two followed by nine zeroes:

2,000,000,000

twenty billion is a two followed by ten zeroes, a factor of ten larger:

20,000,000,000

And that doesn't even take into consideration that a british pound is not equivalent in value to an american dollar. My reading comprehension is just fine. Your math is lousy.

anyway, no point in arguing this because it is so off topic as to be ridiculous

 

[Matthew Warner]

Interesting. Because according to the article Mr. Warner knew about the referrals from the agents and knew about the kickbacks to the agents and heard Bill repeating the same sales spiel over and over and knew that the MS he and everybody else were reading and laughing about at the office were "putrid" and "horrible" and saw his boon companion Kelley keeping the ledger and knew Denise that drove a Jaguar and on and on and on.

Now who's reading comprehension needs help here?

Yes, I knew about the referrals but was told they were normal. Yes, I knew about the kickbacks but was told they were normal. I was kind of like you (as much as saying that gives me a case of the willies) in that I was too naive to know otherwise. But, if you'll read the article, the bit about the Jaguar was according to one of my sources (named, of course, unlike yourself) who worked there after I was gone. And I don't think I said everyone else was saying the manuscripts were putrid and horrible; I was stating my own opinions. Also, I didn't realize until after the fact that Kelley keeping a ledger might have been something nefarious.

C'mon you're not really an editor, are you? You're a creative writer.

In fact, there doesn't seem to have been any aspect of the enterprise of which he was unaware. Except that it was illegal. Convenient that.

There was quite a bit I wasn't aware of and which I didn't learn about until after the fact. Re-read the article.

He didn't bail Victoria: he was fired.

That's true--and it was because I was sexually harrassed. I don't know how much longer I would have stayed there if I wasn't, though. Bill, Kelley, et. al. were about as nice as you are.

But here's how little I knew about what they were doing in Buffalo: I recommended that they take two for representation. They were so few and far between that I still remember them: a holocaust survivor's non fiction book about the history of Jewish humor and a brilliantly written scifi thing.

I thought you said you instantly realized they were bad news when you were offered a job at Edit Ink? Edit Ink didn't claim to do any literary agenting, so why would you make such a recommendation to them--unless you're a complete liar about everything you've said here?

 

[Tad Cynical]

On our side of the ocean,

Which side of the ocean would that be Mr. Warner. I live in NY.

any supervisor-employee relations is sexual harrassment by definition, regardless of any implied consent. So is retaliation for said relations and/or an atmosphere of hostility that in any way stems from those relations. This isn't my specialty of jurisprudence, but I think I have the gist of it right.

You have a specialty of jurisprudence, do you? Interesting. Where'd you go to law school? I went to Albany Law, class of 94.

In any event, regarding sexual harassment, allow me to quote the EEOC.

"Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination . . . Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment . . . The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome. "

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html

So you see, you asking someone else out and then taking off your pants in her presence isn't sexual harassment at all. Unless she forced you to ask her out? With her feminine wiles?

The article wasn't about the sex, though. I only told the story in the interests of full disclosure--which is more than I can say for you and your cowardly pseudonym.

Alas Mr. Warner: there are no heroes on the interweb. Only subs.

 

[Roger J Carlson]

Alas Mr. Warner: there are no heroes on the interweb. Only subs.

Your use of the term "interweb" in incorrect. You use it as if you think it is the correct term. It should only be used when you are trying to imply that your correspondent does not know that the correct term is "internet". Unless, of course, you believe it IS the correct term...

For more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb

 

[Matthew Warner]

Which side of the ocean would that be Mr. Warner. I live in NY.

Oh, sorry. I thought this weird "interweb" thing you have going was some kind of British slang.

You have a specialty of jurisprudence, do you? Interesting. Where'd you go to law school? I went to Albany Law, class of 94.

Nah, I'm a paralegal in personal injury law. I'm not claiming to be an expert on sexual harrassment.

Anyway, interesting link to the EEOC. I'm not sure you're correct, though. It says sexual harrassment can include "but not [be] limited to" elements such as unwelcome advances. Does the fact that her advances were not unwelcome at the time mean that firing me later for her own conduct was not sexual harrassment? I'd be interested in reading a memorandum of law on this.

So you see, you asking someone else out and then taking off your pants in her presence isn't sexual harassment at all.

Man, your reading comprehension level just keeps getting lower and lower, doesn't it? I believe I said she took my pants off. I'd be afraid to have you edit my book with reading skills that are so poor.

Still afraid to give us your name and company, eh?

 

[Tad Cynical]

That's true--and it was because I was sexually harrassed. I don't know how much longer I would have stayed there if I wasn't, though. Bill, Kelley, et. al. were about as nice as you are.

What a poor victim you were. First you were sexually harassed when a coworker repeatedly refused to date you. And then you were fired for being sexually harassed by the psychic energy that radiated off her, which you could feel clear on the other side of the room.

I thought you said you instantly realized they were bad news when you were offered a job at Edit Ink? Edit Ink didn't claim to do any literary agenting, so why would you make such a recommendation to them--unless you're a complete liar about everything you've said here?

What I said was that I realized that something fishy was going on when I visited the Victorian. Too many MS, too many teenaged editors. Denise represented herself as an agent when she was Editcetera and even the entity before that. New Visions Literary Agency it might have been called, but don't quote me.

 

[victoriastrauss]

Guys, we're going way off topic here. Let's try and keep the discussion focused on Edit Ink.

- Victoria

 

[Tad Cynical]

Oh, sorry. I thought this weird "interweb" thing you have going was some kind of British slang.

Nah, I'm a paralegal in personal injury law. I'm not claiming to be an expert on sexual harrassment.

Anyway, interesting link to the EEOC. I'm not sure you're correct, though. It says sexual harrassment can include "but not [be] limited to" elements such as unwelcome advances. Does the fact that her advances were not unwelcome at the time mean that firing me later for her own conduct was not sexual harrassment? I'd be interested in reading a memorandum of law on this.

I quoted the US government's understanding of sexual harassment. If you have some authority that is inapposite - that says A is sexually harassed when A asks B for a date repeatedly - bring it to the table. Elsewise, you're being "not sure" is less than persuasive.

Man, your reading comprehension level just keeps getting lower and lower, doesn't it? I believe I said she took my pants off.

Um, no. Allow me to quote you:

"We started to kiss and take our pants off."

I'd be afraid to have you edit my book with reading skills that are so poor.

You couldn't afford to have me edit your book.

Still afraid to give us your name and company, eh?

My name and company are not germane to the discussion squire. You've misreprented the law and now you're reduced to lying about what you've written. What possible relevance can my name have to do with that?