PG’s Thoughts

Debunking the Discovery Problem

28 April 2015

From BookBusiness:

Ever since ebooks gained traction the publishing industry has obsessed with what’s typically referred to as “the discovery problem.” The common wisdom is that discovery of the content will lead to fame and fortune.

I believe digital content’s main challenge is more about efficiency, less about discovery, and my inspiration for this point of view comes from a totally unrelated business: the coffee industry.

A recent Businessweek article noted that single-serve pods (e.g., Keurig) have eliminated coffee’s biggest consumer: the kitchen sink.

. . . .

It turns out that with Mr. Coffee and other drip systems a great deal of product ends up going to waste. The net result is that as the single-serve devices gain momentum we’re creating a climate where total consumption is lower and excess inventories are leading to lower prices for coffee beans.

In short, the article notes that while Americans still drink a lot of coffee, they do it more efficiently. Each cup in the single-serve model is more expensive but in total we’re consuming and wasting far less coffee now.

What in the world does this have to do with digital content?

I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that we have an excessive amount digital content today. A great deal of it is being produced but in many cases nobody is reading it. This has led to an overabundance of free and cheap content which is being both professionally published as well as self-published.

Wasted coffee goes down the drain but wasted content simply goes unread.

. . . .

Just as nobody walks into a bookstore asking for the latest book from Macmillan, nobody is sitting around saying, “Gee, I wish I could discover more content.” What we really need is more efficient delivery of content that’s highly relevant to our specific needs and interests.

. . . .

At some point content efficiency will improve. I’ve referred to this before as the need for a “content concierge”, resulting in much better recommendations, tailored content streams and, yes, it will come at a higher price, just like the single-serving coffee pods.

Link to the rest at BookBusiness

For PG, Amazon does a great job as a “content concierge” for ebooks and a lot of other stuff. And it comes with lower prices.

Plus word-of-mouth is floating all over the internet and groups of readers enthusiastic about any type or genre or sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre of book (or power tool or videogame) abound. Providing information about books is a service better performed by enthusiastic amateurs or (sometimes) ad-supported professionals than by someone charging for book recommendations.

The disruption of the book business by ebooks and ecommerce means that a lot of legacy players are struggling to find a value-add that will justify their commercial existence.

Barnes & Noble is closing stores because readers have been and will continue to decide that the price of buying books there (in dollars, time and travel) is higher than buying books on Amazon. Barnes & Noble isn’t adding enough value with its in-store environment for an increasing number of readers to pay for its book-selling services.

Publishers are losing authors (or never signing them in the first place) because authors are concluding that the price of doing business through a publisher (in low royalties, time and hassle-factor) is higher than the value the publisher is adding via access to physical bookstores.

Judge wants $10 million set aside for possible award in Fifty Shades lawsuit

28 April 2015

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

A state district judge wants $10 million in cash or investments to be set aside for a potential award after a Tarrant County jury ruled earlier this year that an Arlington woman was cheated out of royalties from the blockbuster novel Fifty Shades of Grey.

. . . .

A Tarrant County jury in February ruled that Hayward defrauded Pedroza out of the financial windfall created by the erotic New York Times bestseller which also inspired a movie by the same name.

. . . .

Pedroza sued Hayward last year, contending that she conned her out of her rightful partnership interests in advances and royalties.

Pedroza and Hayward, who lived in Dural, a Sydney suburb, were partners in The Writer’s Coffee Shop, which started out as an online blog in 2009, along with Waxahachie resident Jennifer McGuire. Visitors to the fan-based website discussed books and wrote “fan fiction” stories.

McGuire did design work for the blog, Pedroza uploaded contributors’ writing, and Hayward worked with the authors, court records show. Later, Christa Beebe, another Arlington resident, joined and helped with marketing and distribution.

By 2010, Pedroza and Hayward had the Coffee House operating as a publishing house. And in 2011 it published Fifty Shades of Grey, a romance novel by E.L. James, a British author, as an e-book and print-on-demand full-length book.

The company published the sequels, Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed, in 2011 and 2012. The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy became an online sensation, selling 250,000 copies through e-book and print-on-demand, with another 20,000 print copies.

In 2012, Random House made a deal with Hayward and James to publish the books. Pedroza received a one-time payment of $100,000 after the Random House contract was signed, but she was never told of the full terms of the transaction. Random House was not named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit acknowledges that the two Texans — Pedroza and McGuire — and Hayward never signed a prepared partnership agreement. But in 2011, The Writer’s Coffee Shop filed a partnership income tax return, naming Pedroza as a general partner, it says.

Pedroza contended in her suit that Hayward in 2012 secretly converted the Coffee Shop into a company she alone owned. The jury determined that there was a partnership between the women. Beebe settled her claims in December in a confidential agreement.

Link to the rest at Fort Worth Star-Telegram and thanks to Suzan for the tip.

As a general proposition, if two or more people start and operate a business together, the presumption will be that they have created a partnership unless they have an agreement signed by everyone to the contrary. The presumption can be rebutted, but the individual(s) who don’t want a court to find that a partnership existed have the burden of proving the business was something other than a partnership, that a person was an employee, for example, and not a partner.

Absent evidence to the contrary, all persons who are partners are entitled to a share of partnership profits.

When there’s no partnership agreement, the way the business was run, who was paid how much, statements the parties made about the business, emails,  tax returns, etc., will be used to determine who is entitled to what percentage of partnership profits. The default presumption is that partners will divide partnership profits equally.

Partnership agreements can be very simple documents. However, without such an agreement, signed by everyone, resolving disputes over who gets the money can be very expensive.

How to Spot a Rights Grab

25 April 2015

From The Book Designer:

Writers see the warnings all the time. Watch out for rights grabs, those contracts that transfer all rights to the writer’s work to some less-than-reputable publisher or self-publishing company. Without realizing it, the writer has given away the right to publish his or her book in print, ebook, audio, app, and all future formats, in all languages, worldwide, for the life of the copyright. Heartbreaking.

. . . .

The answer, of course, is read the contract before your hit Submit.

Daunting? Not if you know where to look. Instead of starting at the beginning of the contract, go straight to any paragraph called Grant of Rights, License, Permission, or Permitted Uses, and look for these Danger Words: Assignment and Exclusive.

If you see these Danger Words, you may not need to read any further.


Legally speaking, a publishing contract is a license, meaning permission to use. The writer continues to own the copyright. In contrast, an assignment transfers complete ownership. It is rarely appropriate in publishing or self-publishing, except for a freelance or ghostwriting project if you understand upfront you are transferring all your rights and ownership in the work.

. . . .

Section 3. Assignment. Author does hereby irrevocably assign to Company and its successors all right, title, and interest throughout the world, in and to the Approved Entries, including without limitation, any copyrights and other proprietary rights in and to the Approved Entries in any media now known or hereinafter developed, and in and to all income, royalties,damages, claims and payments now or hereafter due or payable with respect thereto, and in and to all causes of action, either in law or in equity for past, present, or future infringement of such rights.

. . . .

An exclusive license can be as bad as an assignment.

As I said, a license is permission to use only; you, the creator, retain ownership of the copyrighted work.

Licenses may be worldwide or geographically restricted, short-term or perpetual, royalty-free or royalty-paying, limited to particular media such as audio books, print, e-books, or to a particular language, and most importantly, exclusive or nonexclusive.

If you grant a non-exclusive license, then you may grant the same rights to others at the same time. If you grant an exclusive license, you are agreeing not to transfer similar rights to anyone else.

A license is similar to a lease. Imagine you are a landlord of a shopping center, and you lease shops to various tenants. Their rent is based on how much they sell. Each shop lease is like an exclusive license granted to only one user. Other licenses, such as the right to use the parking lot, are non-exclusive.

Link to the rest at The Book Designer and thanks to James for the tip.

The OP does a good job of describing typical pitfalls.

PG will reiterate Joel’s advice to read the entire contract before accepting it. Yes, it’s no fun and will take some time, but, if it’s a contract for the life of the copyright and you agree to it, you’ll be living with that contract for the rest of your life.

You don’t need to read the entire contract in order to reject it, however. You should read it before you agree to it because the whole contract needs to be right or you should reject it. In an online situation where there is no negotiation of the contract terms, you’re looking for reasons to reject the contract, not accept it. If you find a reason to reject the contract, you’re done with your reading.

Online contracts are usually easy to search if you’re reading them in a browser. You might want to search for words like exclusive, copyright, irrevocable, grant, assign, royalty-free and license. You’ll need to read what you discover to see the context of those words. If you find something you don’t like, post an online warning to your fellow writers and go back to working on your book. You don’t need to read the rest of the contract.

If this technique doesn’t raise any red flags (it’s definitely not a fool-proof solution), you’re stuck reading everything.


TPV Outage

20 April 2015

Earlier today, PG decided to look at some new mobile-friendly themes to replace the not-entirely-satisfactory mobile plugin he’s been using off and on.

The combination of a trial theme and two of the plugins sucked up a huge amount of memory and locked the blog’s backstage door for PG.

Things are happier now and PG has been receiving some tech suggestions to avoid these problems in the future. He apologizes for the outage.

Showrooming is like shoplifting

13 April 2015

From The Bookseller:

Showrooming is just a “genteel form of shoplifting” author David Nicholls told an audience at the London Book Fair Digital Minds Conference this morning (13th April).

Giving a keynote speech at the digital event ahead of the fair’s official start tomorrow (14th April), Nicholls spoke of the importance of physical bookshops, and criticized the practice of discovering a title in a bookshop only to buy it online instead, known as showrooming.

He said: “For all the ease and convenience of online shopping or the digital download, I still feel a town without a bookshop is missing something…For much of the early nineties I worked in bookshops myself, running the children’s section in Waterstones Notting Hill with a rod of iron and believing, like all booksellers, that books are somehow special, that the expertise and enthusiasm of booksellers is vital, that if you love bookshops you should spend money there, and that to discover a book on display in a well-staffed, lovingly-maintained shop, to hold it in your hand then to sneak off and buy the same book online is really just a genteel form of shoplifting.”

. . . .

Nicholls spoke of the beneficial insights e-book data could give an author. He said that from New York he travelled to Toronto, where he “visited the offices of an e-book retailer,”  assumed to be Kobo since the company’s head offices are based there. Nicholls said the staff were “without exception, smart, well-read, youthful, enthusiastic, they reminded me of the people I used to work with in bookshops years ago.” He added that someone asked if he’d be interested in knowing at what point people stopped reading his novel, because if he knew what readers didn’t like, “maybe I could fix it and make it better.”

Nicholls said: “When I wrote my first novel this would have seemed fantastical, but now I can reach into my pocket, take out my phone, open up the text and find out which passages have been underlined, shared and annotated, and I’m always just a few clicks away from several thousand reviews, constructive or otherwise. Why shouldn’t I toughen-up and learn from the data and feedback? More to the point, why shouldn’t I correct those mistakes?”

He concluded the anecdote by telling the staff: “I’ll give it some thought.”

Link to the rest at The Bookseller

PG wonders, if there is only a single bookstore in town, is that a genteel form of monopoly? Or if the bookstores all charge the same price for a book, is that a genteel form of price-fixing? Or if a bookstore refuses to stock Christian literature or certain types of romances, is that a genteel form of censorship?

Here’s an even better idea. If someone comes into your bookstore and reads a few pages in a book, then begins to walk out without purchasing, why not charge that person a reading fee (because it sounds more polite than a shoplifting fee)?

To protect his gentility, perhaps PG shouldn’t go into bookshops at all.

Who’s afraid of self-publishing?

13 March 2015

From FutureBook:

My favourite line in my good colleague Philip Jones’ early look at traditionally publishing authors’ responses to the ongoing survey was just that:

When asked about the possibility of self-publishing, only a minority of authors were excited at the prospect, with the majority (75%), either neutral or horrified at the thought of taking control.

#AuthorSay is the hashtag associated with the “Do You Love Your Publisher?” survey of traditionally publishing authors mounted by UK-based author Harry Bingham and US-based publishing analystJane Friedman.

Whatever we learn about how much authors may or may not love their publishers, it seems a good bet that they’re fond of this survey.

. . . .

Some early glimpses, courtesy of Jones, of input from traditionally publishing writers completing the survey:

  • 75 percent: “either neutral or horrified at the thought of taking control’ by self-publishing
  • 33 percent: published by a Big Five publisher
  • 20 percent: published by a “large trade publisher”
  • A majority of early respondents: “had published six or more titles”
  • 50 percent: “had self-published at least one title”
  • 25 percent: “reported that they had ‘seriously considered’ self-publishing
  • 80 percent: “happy with their cover design”
  • 70 percent: “happy with the copyediting received”
  • 39 percent: “said they would move” to another publisher “if a similar house came along with the same deal”
  • 31 percent: indicated that they would stay with their current publisher if that similar deal were offered by another
  • 45 percent: said they would stay with their current agents if offered a chance to move to another

. . . .

After years of embittered, counter-productive divisions in the author corps, there seem to be signs of hostilities easing. Perhaps the angrier authors see less threat in the “other pathway to publishing” from their own, now that the two modes have coexisted for a time. Or maybe the screamers have just worn themselves out — along with those of us who had to listen to them.

One thing we know is that we’ve never heard as much from the traditionally publishing side of the author camp as we have from the insurgency, the self-publishing sector.

Link to the rest at FutureBook and thanks to Rebecca for the tip.

PG will note that surveys involving self-selected participants are useful for generating raw material for online stories, but are not reflective of the population as a whole. We’ve talked about the Digital Book World survey of “self-published” authors before which, among other things, counts the “self-publishing” income of people who have never sold a book.

People who (a) find out about an online survey and (b) take the time to answer a survey may or (more likely) may not have the same experiences or opinions as the much larger group who who don’t fall into the (a) or (b) groups.

Excel makes it easy to generate lots and lots of percentages, but it doesn’t mean they represent reality.

To be clear, PG has no animus toward any of those who are conducting or promoting the survey. And a headline in his inbox did cause him to click through and read the article, so the survey did help generate a reader for the story.

However, in the largely innumerate world of traditional publishing (see Bookscan and AAP sales figures), PG is certain that some will take these numbers as more than story fodder. He expects to see all sorts of stories about how happy 75.4% of all tradpub authors are.

One apartment complex’s rule: You write a bad review, we fine you $10k

12 March 2015

From Ars Technica:

Trying to control customer opinions online is nearly always a losing game for a business, and there’s now a long line of cases where it has backfired on companies. We uncovered a new example this month, when a reader contacted Ars Technica to show us the “Social Media Addendum” that his Florida apartment complex, called Windermere Cay, included in his lease.

The Social Media Addendum, published here, is a triple-whammy. First, it explicitly bans all “negative commentary and reviews on Yelp! [sic], Apartment Ratings, Facebook, or any other website or Internet-based publication or blog.” It also says any “breach” of the Social Media Addendum will result in a $10,000 fine, to be paid within ten business days. Finally, it assigns the renters’ copyrights to the owner—not just the copyright on the negative review, but “any and all written or photographic works regarding the Owner, the Unit, the property, or the apartments.” Snap a few shots of friends who come over for a dinner party? The photos are owned by your landlord.

. . . .

Not only is such a contract unenforceable, but it could expose anyone promulgating it to legal repercussions, Santa Clara University Law Professor Eric Goldman explained.

“It would be a terrible idea to enforce this in court. A judge is going to shred it,” Goldman said in an interview. “If a person posts an Instragram photo of them having a party in their apartment, the landlord is saying they own that as well. The overreach reinforces that this clause is bad news, and it may be actionable just to ask.”

. . . .

 It’s been clear that such contracts are legally questionable since at least 2003, when the New York v. Network Associates decision came out. In that case, a judge found that telling customers they couldn’t publish reviews of software “without prior consent” violated New York’s unfair competition law. In Goldman’s opinion, “no review” contracts like the one pushed by Windermere could also lead to legal trouble under federal law, since the FTC Act bars “unfair and deceptive” business practices.

Goldman has written about some of the most notable attempts by businesses to squelch customer reviews, although he said the Windermere Cay Social Media Addendum is the first time he has seen such an attempt in the landlord-tenant context.

Link to the rest at Ars Technica

PG hadn’t heard about New York’s Unfair Competition law, so he did a little research (a little research can be a dangerous thing for a lawyer assisting a client, not so much for a blogger).

From The New York Litigation Guide:

We have long recognized two theories of common-law unfair competition: palming off and misappropriation.” ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 9 N.Y.3d 467, 476 (2007).

  1. Defendant misappropriated the fruits of Plaintiff’s labor by obtaining access to plaintiff’s ideas through fraud or deception, or the abuse of a fiduciary or confidential relationship; and
  2. “(1) that the defendant’s activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for, the plaintiff’s activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or mistake; or (2) that the defendant has acted unfairly in some manner.”

KG2, LLC v. Weller, 105 A.D.3d 1414, 1415 (4th Dep’t 2013).

. . . .

Misappropriation is “[t]he principle that one may not misappropriate the results of the skill, expenditures and labors of a competitor has . . . often been implemented in [New York] courts.” ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 9 N.Y.3d 467, 477 (2007).

“‘While [t]here is no complete list of the activities which constitute unfair competition, [t]he general principle . . . is that commercial unfairness will be restrained when it appears that there has been a misappropriation, for the commercial advantage of one person, of a benefit or property right belonging to another.’” IDG USA, LLC v. Schupp, No. 10-CV-76S(F), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151554, at *31-32 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2012).

Link to the rest at The New York Litigation Guide

PG did a little research because he immediately thought about the non-compete clauses included in the contracts of every large New York publisher. Basically, these clauses say something like “author shall not publish any book that might compete with (the books subject to the contract).” These same contracts also specify that New York law will apply to them.

Since the non-compete clauses are included in contracts that last for the full term of the copyright – the rest of the author’s life plus 70 years in the US – PG wonders if such non-compete clauses represent “a misappropriation, for the commercial advantage of one person, of a benefit or property right belonging to another” or that the publishers have “acted unfairly” under the relevant law and cases.

PG will warn all and sundry visitors that this isn’t a legal opinion or even a legal speculation, just a blog post.

Harper Lee’s Condition Debated by Friends, Fans and Now State of Alabama

12 March 2015

From The New York Times:

The doubts arose almost immediately when HarperCollins announced last month that it would release a rediscovered book by Harper Lee: Did Ms. Lee — 88, publicity-shy and famously resistant to producing a follow-up to her masterpiece, “To Kill a Mockingbird” — really want to publish a second novel that she wrote and set aside more than a half-century ago?

Weeks later, that question remains a matter of passionate debate. Despite reassurances from her publisher, lawyer and literary agent that Ms. Lee has enthusiastically endorsed the publication, the controversy over the new book, “Go Set a Watchman,” has divided some residents of her hometown here, as well as longtime friends who live elsewhere. One faction argues that Ms. Lee’s mental health is too shaky for her to have knowingly authorized the new book, while the other just as vigorously affirms her competence.

Now the State of Alabama has been drawn into the debate. Responding to at least one complaint of potential elder abuse related to the publication of “Watchman,” investigators interviewed Ms. Lee last month at the assisted living facility where she resides. They have also interviewed employees at the facility, called the Meadows, as well as several friends and acquaintances.

It remains unclear what, if anything, will come out of the investigation, now more than a month old. One person informed of the substance of the interviews, who did not want to speak for attribution because the inquiry was ongoing, said Ms. Lee appeared capable of understanding questions and provided cogent answers to investigators.

The fact that the state has undertaken an inquiry highlights the scrutiny that Ms. Lee’s publisher and lawyer are facing as they prepare to release one of the most hotly anticipated titles in decades. And the spectacle of a very public debate about Ms. Lee’s mental condition and true intentions has added an operatic blemish to what should have been a triumphant moment for HarperCollins and the millions of fans who have clamored for decades for Ms. Lee to produce another book.

Link to the rest at The New York Times and thanks to Tom for the tip.

PG says the topic of what happens if an individual with significant business or financial interests becomes incompetent or is suspected of being incompetent is one that sometimes is omitted from estate plans, which may focus solely upon what happens after an individual dies.

This is one area where a properly-drafted trust naming a reliable trustee can be valuable. (No, PG doesn’t do trusts any more, but competent estate planning attorneys are not difficult to locate.)

Still think Amazon’s not a gate-keeper?

10 March 2015

From Bdaily:

Before I make my point, I want to stress this is not an ‘Amazon-bashing’ post. You could substitute Amazon for Apple, or a number of large modern-day conglomerates, and still see where I’m coming from. That while they break down traditional barriers at one end, they’re still upholding certain ‘hidden’ gate-keeping practices at the other. I’m going to use Amazon as my main example, however, as they sell, publish and distribute books, a practice I share.

We understand Amazon as the trail-blazer in the publishing industry, which it is, in some ways. Eradicating the slush-pile for authors to navigate, side-stepping agents to woo, anyone anywhere can upload their work – good or bad – to Amazon’s template-driven digital storage facility, to wait for readers to snap up their book. Whether those book-buyers think it’s a quality read is largely irrlevant from one aspect – at least no one’s told them this is the book they must read, that reader has discovered that on their own. With Amazon, there’s no gate-keeper filtering books on the public’s behalf, making their decisions for them: hurrah!

. . . .

Amazon were also early adopters of the ‘no upfront cost’, i.e. print on demand movement (relating to paperbacks/hardbacks, not eBooks). In this process, the digital file on Amazon’s Createspace system remains just a file until the moment it’s ordered. It costs the author nothing to keep it sat digitally on Amazon’s back-office platform, and the cost to Amazon for this service is practically negligible too. The customer then orders and pays and machines whirr into action: the book is no longer a digital file, it’s a physical, printed copy that, within minutes, is winging its way to said reader.

Of course, the author can order copies of their books from Amazon at ‘cost’. Copies they can take to speaking events, book signings, give in person to family, friends and associates…anyone they choose. But the cost of each copy remains the same, however many they order. Compare that to a small print run from an independent printer/publisher, consisting of as few as twenty-five copies, and you would start to see costs shift, and margins getting better and better the more you order. Once you’re a more established as an author, this gap in the printing cost margins starts to make a difference.

Yes, you could argue that Amazon plays a significant role in boosting the platform of a new author from the sheer amount of traffic to their site, in order that they get to be established, but given the size of Amazon’s platform, the amount of free content available on there that can never be consumed, and the sign-posting by the author to get readers to even ‘see’ their book on Amazon, I see their input bringing as many consequences as benefits.

. . . .

Now, before I get a deluge of angry comments from Amazon’s supporters, I accept that they’ve made self-publishing a wholly viable proposition for authors. They’ve offered writers a direct link to their readers with no tyranny from the publishing houses as to which book is accepted and which goes in the trash. From that aspect, the freedom they’ve brought is immeasurable and wonderful.

. . . .

Readers today want ‘access’ to the authors they follow and enjoy. Authors are encouraged, quite rightly, to have a relationship with those buying their books – but, if you sell your books through Amazon, who are these people? Yes, you can see how many books you’ve sold at the end of the month, and any sales spikes, via Nielsen book data, if you’ve successfully scooped some PR, for example, but what’s your demographic? How do you know if those ten books sales that day were from one new reader taking a chance on your whole back catalogue, or ten separate customers buying a cross-section of your books?

The truth is, you don’t know. And that’s where Amazon IS a gate-keeper – the wall between you and your readers. They keep your readers’ email addresses and details of their buying habits – both of which are crucial, and vital information you could use to bolster your writing career and your longevity as an author.

Link to the rest at Bdaily and thanks to SFR for the tip.

PG will point out that virtually all retailers regard data about their customers as one of their most valuable assets and are not inclined to share.

Do publishers give authors details about readers’ buying habits? Of course not because publishers don’t know.

Does Barnes & Noble give authors (or publishers) data about readers’ buying habits? Unless the reader is a member of Barnes & Noble’s buying club (unlikely), Barnes & Noble doesn’t know. It may sell email lists to third parties, but tying an email to the sale of a particular book is something that PG suspects (but doesn’t know) is beyond B&N’s technical capabilities

Even indie bookstores are unlikely to tie an email address to each customer’s purchases or to share that information if they do.

Unless an author is personally handling online sales through a system he/she controls, the retailer is always going to have information about customers that the author doesn’t have.

Problems with the TPV site

8 February 2015

PG was having some problems with one of his security plugins on February 6. He went through the process of deactivating the plugin.

After doing so, he checked out the site using his default browser – Chrome – and it worked fine.

It did not occur to him that he might have broken the site for some others. He discovered today that when he used IE or Firefox to load the site, all he saw was two-day-old posts.

He thinks he’s fixed it now. He’s sorry for concerns or inconvenience he caused. He’s been traveling and dealing with very slow to non-existent internet connections.

If you or someone you know isn’t seeing the latest posts – February 8 – send PG a note via the Contact page.

Next Page »