>John,
>
>>Please...you are so full of yourself.
>
>
You know, I have been dealing with a good many potential authors over the past few months and it's very interesting that you are the only one who seems to have a problem with rejection or delay. Why is that?
>

I don't have an issue with rejection, just so long as it is with some measure of propriety. You have a personal bias which does not comport with your stated public objective re: FT.


>
I have accepted proposals from some, I have rejected others, I have delayed some. I have pushed back on content ideas, asked for rewrites, edited some very severely, pushed people hard on deadlines, cut one author down from a 3-part series to 1 article with a maybe on a part 2, and even kept some complete articles in the hopper awaiting edit (and space) for months.
>

What does this have to do with me? BFD...you cut something down from a 3 part series to 1 article. That is what an editor is supposed to do. Look...you don't need to justify/quantify what you do to me. The only extent you are accountable to me is in how you deal with me. You dealt with me unfairly. And...I would have left it alone. But...you had to go and critcize and pontificate.


>
ALL of those authors (except you) have been completely professional in all their dealings with me, regardless of whether or not they liked my actions or requirements.
>

I wonder if they would be that way if you let personal bias rule the roost with them.


>
Not one has ever acted as unprofessionally as you have, both with private insults to me and my staff,
>

Your staff????? What..do you have a little empire now that calls for a staff??? Please...


>>
as well as public attacks both on me and on some of my current authors.
>>

Are they "your" authros???

I don't believe I have attacked "your" current authors - at least - in their capacity as being "your" author...

>
You'll remember that I told you in an email that exalting yourself above the other authors would not buy you much with me.
>

First off, you went on the offensive - to insinuate that I might not be the best person to write the Oracle content. I responded by saying that in all likelihood, there are few that have worked with Oracle+Fox to the degree I have - with the writing credentials I have as well.

You want to talk unprofessional??? How about the lack of respect that you show a person who 1 - has written 50+ articles for FT and 2 - has a bona-fide supurb reputation re: technical articles. All that given that my only aim was to help FT in it current deficeit.

You should have just said thanks...but no thanks.... In that case Dave, less said would have been better.


>
Still, I bent over backwards to be fair in giving you an opportunity to submit proposals after the end of the year, but evidently the delay was more than you could handle.
>

Interesting spin. You say on one hand, you bent over backwards, and then on the other, say that you won't publish material by me because you don't want to give the impression you agree with my view points.

Interesting spin indeed Dave...

>
So my publisher and I wonder... why should we take on the bother and hassle and risk of dealing with someone who acts as you do -- both privately and publicly? The answer is simple -- we will not. And that is very sound business sense. You can spin it any way you want, but that's the bottom line.
>

Well I guess if the folks at Ragan were OK with how FT was operating in the recent past, then it should not be a surprise that decision making processes are slighly skewed. You indeed may have found the right place for your "talents".

Basically, I offer to do something to help the magazine out, you throw it back on me - directing your personal bias and invective - and I am the bad guy...

Whatever Dave...