Leaderboard

The point I was getting at is that the story contained in the book or "goodies" is no more or no less true based on what it may cost. Back in the day, encyclopedias cost plenty, and the information contained within them was certainly trusted and accurate. A Driver's Handbook is provided at no cost to the individul, yet it is a true synopsis of the rules and regulations of the state's roadways. I just don't see how the cost of a book is a factor. Let me ask you a question, Bipedal Ape: Why should someone not profit from an experience they've had if they have taken the time to write a book about it, or if someone wants to step forward with a business proposition and publish said manuscript? Yet somehow the fact that someone may profit from a book seems to determine whether the information it contains is true or not, or that the value of the contents are somehow diminished because it was expected to profit the author. I am aghast when I hear someone make a statement like the one quoted above. I really don't see what the problem is with someone taking monetary advantage of a situation they've experienced, nor do I understand why someone would expect to be able to obtain something someone worked hard to produce, taking literally months to compose, free of charge. That's their property. They've worked hard to make it happen, converting their experience or intellectual property into a medium to sell. Nobody has a right to benefit from another's hard work without paying a fee for it, whether it be a book, a DVD, an MP-3 download or a day's labor. Call me crazy, but I thought that's the way it has always been. I believe - regardless of cost - that the book's contents and the information within the "goodies" should be evaluated on their own merit and judged by their own validity. Cost is only meant to cloud the issue that the information may or may not be believable by those that imply their own disbelief. The information is either true or it isn't, and cost has nothing to do with it.