not the best video but thanks. the best site to get started working at home is Heavy Dollars (search it) – its so helpful, it helps me make extra $'s.
others
So, 14 out of 24 parts is gold. That means that your 14K gold ring is 58.33% gold and 41.67% some other alloy. If you’re selling the ring for scrap, the gold buyer is only …
Exquisite Ring With 1.00ctw Genuine Diamonds Crafted in 14K Yellow Gold. This ring is BRAND NEW… It is absolutely beautiful and I am selling it for a huge discount… I have never worn it, it is still in the box with the price tag. I paid $2000.00 for it on sale, regular …
ITEM: Extractors for TD/TB42 and full 2.5 inch Mandrel exhaust CONDITION: 4 months old REASON FOR SELLING: fitted turbo and 3inch PRICE AND PRICE CONDITIONS: $450 ono LOCATION: Gold Coast CONTACT: PM ITEM: TD42 Sump CONDITION: VGC REASON FOR SELLING: fitted …
buy gold
Make Money For Yourself By Frank A Truebloode
Top Sponsor: Click Here
Money is hard to make but people need it for almost everything. If you want to be able to make money online then now is the best time to begin. You can make an income simply by using your laptop. Everyone wants to make money but some people are under the impression that you need to invest a certain amount of money to begin. This is simply not true. You can make a lot of money without investing hardly any money at all.
Before you begin working you will want to check on the business that you are considering. You can check on their reputation through the Better Business Bureau. The business you choose needs to have a secure foundation and will increase the number of people working at it fairly quickly. It shouldn't require that you pay so much money down to start working. Some companies will promise that you will get the money back after your first sale or your first month. This is not true either. You should never be required to pay money to make money.
You can do a search online to find the right online business for you. Some people are better at selling a product while others are better at offering a service. You need to figure out which one best describes you and then you will be ready to find out where you should go from there. If you are not sure which business is right for you then you can do a search online to find out. There are so many opportunities when it comes to working at a business online.
If you don't see something online that you like then you may want to start your own business doing what you want to do. This is a great idea if you have a specific talent to do something that someone else does not possess. If you want to make money off of your talent then you can advertise this online. When you have an idea you may want to search online to see if someone else has come up with the same idea.
Once you find a business that you can do online or if you begin your own business online you will need to open up a website that will display your product or service. You can begin advertising and start bringing in customers.
You will need to work on your business every day in order to build it up and make it successful.
Watch our free video and learn how to make money online with WhoIsMoneymakingsystem365. For more details visit Moneymakingsystem365.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Frank_A_Truebloode
http://EzineArticles.com/?Make-Money-For-Yourself&id=3366686
Rumors were China [Apr 25, 2009: China Begins Building Gold Reserves] was going to buy this stash of gold from the IMF; but it appears India “won”. This will drop the International Monetary Fund stake but still keep it at spot #3 in world's reserves, and send India screaming up the charts from 14th [Oct 13, 2009: Largest Gold Reserves by Country] Gold fever is spreading across he globe as central banks go wild printing paper currency….
Via Reuters:
[Oct 29, 2009: Paul Tudor Jones 3rd Quarter Investor Letter - Another Gold Bug] [Oct 8, 2009: Is Ben Bernanke Ruining Indian Weddings?] [Sep 29, 2009: NYT - Out from India's Alleys, Gold Loans Gain Respect] [Mar 17, 2009: John Paulson Joins David Einhorn as Gold Bug with Stake in AngloGold Ashanti (AU)]
There are many, many merchants who want to offer you cash for gold these days, and many of them are rip-offs. Consumer Reports took the time to shop around some jewelry and record which methods give real returns for gold.
The not-for-profit consumer group shopped identical 18k pendant jewelry to three of the more widely advertised mail-in gold buyers, as well as pricing a sale at local jewelry stores and pawn shops. The price of gold fluctuates day to day, but one thing remained constant—mailing in your jewelry to “convenient” vendors was almost never worth it:
The cash-for-gold companies paid 11 to 29 percent of the day's market price for gold; the other venues, about 35 to 70 percent.
Consumer Reports recommends using a daily price calculator, like Dendritics', in combination with a digital kitchen scale and the karat stamp to figure out what your jewelry is actually worth.
Where have you received the best price for sold gold? When is selling versus holding a piece worth it? We welcome your (far more experienced, likely) take in the comments.
sell my gold
Rambling … the crowded trade phrase doesn't work in this case. The gold market is quite small, for example the mkt cap of the senior gold mines (all components of the HUI & XAU) is a little over $200B (by comparison Microsoft is $252B). That’s gold in the ground. Above ground govs own a few 10s of thousands of tons, the rest is stashed & traded. 90%+ of all gold mined still exists, most silver OTOH is consumed in electronics factories etc.
The US has $50T in personal & gov debt. The banks have 100s of trillions in worthless hidden CDS junk for which there’s no market except the public via FED slight of hand without which banks would be flat bankrupt & out of business. Government Treasury Bonds are no better than currency, paper IOUs & probably uncollectible as things deteriorate or holders get paid off with worthless script with severe purchasing power losses, legalized theft, not much difference. Houses, the biggest item in most people’s lives are in trouble & no hope of rescue for decades.
The buying power of twenty US dollars in 1913 bought you almost one troy ounce of gold or about 13 ounces of silver. Today $20 will buy you 1/54th of an ounce of gold (0.57 grams), a 98% drop in paper buying power in 96 years.
When the Spaniards looted Mexico, Espanola & Cuba of their gold & silver it flooded the market in Spain causing tremendous inflation much the same as 20thC Western bank fiat. Between 1503 & 1560 approx 112 tonnes of gold was brought to Seville in addition to 1500 tonnes of silver from Mexico & the Indes from 1530 to 1570. The gold silver ratio started out at 2:1 in the early 16thC & gradually widened to 12:1 by 1608. This was a one time world event exc for South African mines but SA mine assets were better controlled. For a while Spain was the leading power until they met their match in Elizabeth I. Europe’s lead bankers gravitated to Antwerp who the Prince of Orange brought to England when crowned William III then settled the remnants of Catholic ambitions at the Battle of the Boyne where James was routed. A few years later the Bank of England sprang into being & fractional money-lending went systemic across a growing empire refining the methods of the Knights Templar bankers Philip V had executed to resolve his debt, the Goldman Sachs of the day (or does Goldman answer to the BoE today?) stealing land along the Crusader corridor for a few hundred years offering protection for fees. Market manipulators similar in some ways to GS et al.
Modern political parties & royalty seek monopoly powers they share between each other according to society’s mood. Sometimes they like to experiment with feudalism, fascism, socialism, communism, today a weird mix of them all, governments like to be big & bureaucrats must be paid, socialist benefits funded to keep populaces orderly, in debt & in fear, bankers like to live like royalty, poppy fields protected in foreign lands, soldiers paid & equipped. How to keep all this going except by fiat & material growth without vast colonies to exploit, & excess fiat growth begins to weaken the Empire as demographics fall apart, consuming peaks out & the FED bungs its mates $12 trillion this year, $20 trillion next & the $100 trillion CDS won’t go away, so best solution is gear up the fraud & swap dollars for Euros, Reals, gold, oil, copper, anything except dollars before anyone stops them which of course isn’t going to happen, & unless Bernanke & co do something radical, which he won’t, it looks like fait accompli approaching & the ruling elite get the loot & the people get a kick in the head as usual.
In view of which, probably not a crowded trade though the dollar would climb ten or twenty points if banks & funds close their dollar shorts, frighten gold hoarders into selling their stash, then sell dollars again a year or so later.
This mess took 96 years to make. World reserve fiat kept it going smoothly till mid 2007 & finance broke down so the situation is very young, a short 30 months old. A look at an $INDU:$GOLD chart shows the DOW's real position. The 2000 high of 44 dropped to 7 in March & now 10. $USB:$GOLD is down from the 2000 high of 0.4 to 0.1 In due course gold will peak like the DOW in 2000 but, this is a trade that can & will get more crowded over the next 4 years. Sit back & watch.
11/02/09 Gaithersburg, Maryland – I think we’re still in the early stages of what could become a gold mania. While there are a lot more people talking about gold now and the gold price is close to all-time highs, it remains an underowned asset. Only a small fraction of investors own any gold at all. Hardly any institutions own any gold, either. As we now have 10 years of market-beating data for gold, it’s going to attract more attention.
I think that attention will eventually carry it to a price of $2,000-3,000 pretty easily — maybe more. So far, gold has had a steady march up since 2000. The last leg, the mania phase, always has a rapid and explosive move before it’s all over. We’re not there yet.
As for what will pull gold back down, I think a strong economic recovery could derail gold’s story for a time, but as long as the U.S. dollar makes its way to new depths over time, I think the gold price will drift higher.
Most people think of gold as an inflation hedge. To me, it is more than that. Gold is primarily a bet against the creditworthiness of the issuers of paper currencies. In other words, as the creditworthiness of the U.S. government weakens — thanks to high debts and deficits — gold will be a strong asset… and gold stocks ought to be one way to juice the return you get from gold. Our two gold stocks are up 80% and 40% since we bought them earlier this year. If we get any pullback in gold, I’ll be a buyer.
make money posting links
Recently I am looking for some course and book to make money online. But sad to said that, most of them are not what they claim.
Basically, I think only 2 concepts to earn money online:
1) Traffic ( lots of traffic)2) Conversion ( Convert them to become customers)
This is another one:
http://www.googlesnatch3.com/?hop=bryxen4
I always ask myself if the method is so good why you want to share it out. And why you still want to make money from the method that you teach. Why not share it out free since you already very rich.
Maybe I am wrong. Do you differ with me?
Or if it is true which one is better: Google Sniper or Google Snatch or I come out another one Snipper and Snatch together, maybe should call Snatcpher.
Here is the introduction of the product:
'The Google Ultimatum' Strategy That Allows You To Snatch Every Possible Cash Paying Customer From Every Corner Of The Web, Whether It's On Google, Yahoo, MSN, Bing Or ANY Other Search Engine You Can Think Off … All Done Without Spending a Single Dime!But DON'T worry … this has got NOTHING to do with Google Adwords, PPC, SEO, pyramid schemes, surveys, list building, email promotions, buying links, Google Adsense, posting ads, mailing lists, stuffing envelopes, eBay or MLM. Plus NOBODY wants to reveal the 'REAL' techniques, NOT even your guru friends…
… as up to now, YOU have been misled to FAIL on purpose… so that one day you'll pack up and leave more cash on the table for people who are sitting comfortably on a formula that works! I should know … as the day I STOPPED listening to everyone was the day I started cashing in ridiculous amounts of cash from products, services AND affiliate products.
Hi,
I am now am a reseller of Frederrick's SEO services.
Many have known of Frederrick’s result-driven and professional SEO For Google here in DP. Yes it’s the “PAY ONLY WHEN ACHIEVE TOP 10 RANKING”
I am pleased to inform that Frederrick’s SEO service for Google. Service is still available, alive and kicking YES YOU NEED NOT PAY A DIME till they deliver the Top 10 ranking for your keywords in Google.com
Whats the Catch?
Service Limitation
Costing
THE 60th edition of Who's Who in America, that venerable guide to American achievement, was published last week. The familiar two-volume ''big red book,'' a librarian's Vanity Fair, recognizes 109,000 people and, by their inclusion, recommends them to posterity and to America's collective memory. Kind of like a magazine cover that stays on the stands forever. But in the era of the Internet and Google, of reality television, gangsta rap stars, celebrity publicists, incarcerated domestic divas and the famous 15 minutes of fame (probably closer to 5 now), who is who? ''I think about this every day,'' said Jon Gelberg, managing director for special projects at Marquis Who's Who, the book's publisher. He was speaking at the company's offices in New Providence, N.J., where an editorial team of 70, including 12 researchers, make the call on who's notable and who's not. Talking about his work, Mr. Gelberg sometimes looked as stoical as Hercules. Who's Who, traditionally a polite old-boys' club of state supreme court justices, clergymen, explorer/authors, botany professors and other conservatively distinguished academic, government, and professional figures, is now — under a two-year-old management team that wants to recognize popular culture just as emphatically — Who's In and Who's Out as well. The crowd squeezed into the latest edition is as much V.I.P. room as reference room. Think of going down in history as the ultimate afterparty. Who's newly who for 2006? Kanye West, the hip-hop artist; Joel Osteen, the televangelist; Eva Longoria, the actress who plays Gabrielle Solis in ''Desperate Housewives''; Ken Jennings, who holds the record for the longest winning streak on the game show ''Jeopardy''; and Tony Hawk, the skateboarder. They take their places in American culture's carved stone with presidents, Nobel Prize winners, the entertainment elite and the titans of industry. Back after a one-year hiatus is Martha Stewart, whose stint in jail disqualified her in 2005. Who isn't who yet? Alice Waters, the mother of new American cuisine. Who was who but isn't for 2006? Beck. Who isn't who, as in ''Who?'' Rod Strickland, the basketball player, and Linda Evans, a star of ''Dynasty,'' the popular 1980's evening soap opera. And who will never be who? Victoria Gotti, the author, television personality and daughter of John Gotti. She is ineligible because of the Gotti family's associations with organized crime, what Marquis's editors term ''notorious'' or ''infamous'' achievement. ''My life is going to go on without it, believe me,'' Ms. Gotti said of a Who's Who citation, speaking by telephone from California. Monica Lewinsky? Never had a chance. But with the often upside-down nature of who is celebrated today, or why, occupational categories like organized crime are under review. Socialites, with a few exceptions, like the late, ubiquitous Nan Kempner, are kept out. Paris Hilton, the celebutante, was included last year, distinguished, Mr. Gelberg said, by her achievements in three industries: fashion, film and television. ''Popular culture has expanded and grown coarser, so there's no reason not to include Paris Hilton,'' said Matthew Boylan, a reference librarian at the Donnell Library Center of the New York Public Library. And librarians, to judge from several spoken to, are an egalitarian but tough crew when it comes to reference materials, exhibiting a protective ferocity that might impress the Gottis. ''Are we trying to make it more relevant? Absolutely,'' Mr. Gelberg said. ''Who are people talking about? Who is on magazine covers? People in the hip-hop world, X-Games types. We're adding them in greater numbers. This is a part of culture.'' Hard calls, like activists, are subject to debate. Cindy Sheehan, opposing the war in Iraq, is a Who by sheer volume of news coverage in the last year; Randall Terry, the anti-abortionist, is not, largely through oversight and not lack of newsworthiness, Mr. Gelberg said. Mr. Terry is being discussed for inclusion in 2007. Part of the company's three-year plan to make Who's Who more relevant is to reflect the leadership among African-, Asian- and Hispanic-Americans. Brigida Benitez, a lawyer and president of the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, is one example. The guide is also applying a brisk sweep of the broom to names that have gathered dust, not laurels. For 2006, 37,000 names were dropped while 20,000 were added. Marquis Who's Who also maintains a database, available by subscription, of 1.2 million names, including those in the book, those dropped, those being considered and those of the deceased. For those included, it is a brutal world of column inches: George W. Bush, one and a quarter; Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen, two and a half between them; Stephen Hawking and Cher, one and three-quarters each; Madonna, two; Noam Chomsky, six. Though entertainers and other well-publicized figures are not new to Who's Who, which first appeared in 1898, its acceptance of popular culture has evolved. Professional athletes, who were considered laborers, were excluded until 1927, when Bill Tilden, the tennis star and social celebrity, was admitted. When Mae West was denied entrance to the big red book, she told reporters that its editors would not be included in her little black book. In the 1968-'69 edition of Who's Who, John Lennon is present but Mick Jagger is not, reflecting parental attitudes toward the Beatles and the Rolling Stones more than professional objectivity. If Who's Who in America has created, by mosaic, a portrait of America and its tectonic shifts, its latest edition, with its new recognition of popular culture, is a picture that some might find startling to see — like an unintended look in the mirror. Who's Who is a dry reminder that celebrity for celebrity's sake is now a seasoned American industry as powerful and internationally recognized as steel once was, driven by CD's, movies, fragrances, tabloid romances and the weightless gravitas of pure appearance. ''Hilary Duff, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera — they have enormous staying power,'' said Kerry Morrison, Marquis's managing research editor. ''Compared with Debbie Gibson?'' Ouch. Ms. Gibson, whom Ms. Morrison characterized as a ''flash in the pan'' — Who's Who's worst egg-on-the-face nightmare — was never in the book or the database. At greatest issue at Marquis is whether Who's Who in America itself is still ''Who.'' With the information highway now an international Interstate, is a 5,919-page, $749 reference book an authoritative tool and valid portrait of society, or a dinosaur from the print age? ''It had a great name, but the product needed great improvement,'' said James A. Finkelstein, who with Wilbur L. Ross Jr. bought Marquis Who's Who in 2003. Appearing every other year until 1992, it is now an annual publication. People will fall in and out of the print edition more quickly than they have in the past, to make it more reflexive as a reference work, Mr. Finkelstein said. The company publishes 16 Who's Who titles, including volumes devoted to American women and to those in education, which are purchased primarily by libraries. A total of 25,000 copies have been sold for shipment for 2006. How does a who become a Who? There are 73 categories and 800 occupations that constitute guidelines for admission, said Fred Marks, senior managing director. To shake out nominees, his staff reviews lists like the Forbes Celebrity 100 and the Fortune 500, as well as lists specific to various industries and professions. Researchers also compile names from general interest magazines like Time and special interest magazines like The American Lawyer, looking for new candidates or verifying that people included in the last edition are still Who. ''The fundamental standards here are position and accomplishment,'' said Gene M. McGovern, Marquis's chief executive. ''The book fills up fast — Pulitzers, the Fortune 1,000, Congress.'' Ms. Morrison added, ''With an Oscar, you could stay in until you're dead.'' In 2006, 26 percent of those included are women, up from 14 percent 10 years ago. Those selected are sketched biographically, then contacted for additional information or asked to fill out a form. Finished entries are not uniformly fact-checked. ''How far do they go to verify the information?'' asked Susan Newson, head of reference at the East Meadow Public Library on Long Island. ''That's the question. You have to assume those selected will not fudge the information or aggrandize themselves, because the list is fairly distinguished.'' Speaking for librarians, Ms. Newson added, ''We're a little suspicious, but on lesser-known people, we have nothing else.'' Robert Homer Simpson, for example, the first meteorologist to fly over a hurricane, in 1947, can still be found in Who's Who. For many of those whose fame is in full bloom, like the hip-hop star Missy Elliott, being included in the book is not just another piece of publicity. She entered the book last year. ''I'm more than happy to be in company with Oprah and Hillary Clinton,'' she said on Thursday in a telephone interview. ''Looking at those accomplishments, it makes mine look very small. It makes you sit back.'' Ms. Elliott added: ''Reporters always ask me, 'What are the highlights of my career?' This would definitely be a first.''
This writing is fun reading and will give you a quick look at the issue, though it might not be trhorough or com,prehensive. But in this world in which accomplishment takes time, who has time to be included. What’s fame? It’s independent of anyone’s recognition of the fame.
I've been planning on doing this post for some time, but putting it off because it involved a lot of research. What tipped me over the line? The other day my husband, Rob, got a solicitation from Cambridge Who's Who.
“It is my pleasure,” the letter from Editor in Chief Jennifer A. Gonzalez begins, “to inform you that you are being considered for inclusion into the 2007/2008 Cambridge Who's Who Among Executives and Professionals “Honors Edition” of the Registry.” This is a major honor, Jen explains, because the Registry will include biographies of “our country's most accomplished professionals,” many of whom regard inclusion as “the single highest mark of achievement.” There's an application form that Rob can fill out and send back if he's the snail mail type, or if he's electronically inclined he can apply online. Just in case it occurs to him to wonder whether there's a catch, Jen hastens to reassure him: “There is no cost to be included in the Registry.”
Rob lives with me (and Writer Beware), so the first words out of his mouth were “This is a scam, right?” Unfortunately, many people are much less suspicious.
There are legitimate Who's Who publishers–A & C Black in the UK, Marquis in the USA. They research the people they include, and while they'd love it if you bought the book, that's not the main reason for their existence. Cambridge and its ilk, on the other hand, are all about the hard sell. Similar to the vanity poetry anthologizers, Who's Who schemes lure customers by presenting themselves as a no-cost opportunity, but make their money by persuading people to buy books and/or memberships–often at costs exceeding $1,000. They claim to be selective, but in reality they harvest names just as junk mailers or spammers do, randomly and without regard to credentials–which means that their networking value, often touted to justify the enormous membership or purchase fee, is negligible. The bigger ones attempt to tailor their solicitations–Rob is in insurance, so he got the Executives and Professionals letter. A woman might get an invitation to the Executive and Professional Women registry. There's a solicitation for people in education. There's one for scientists. There's one for healthcare professionals. Here's an especially disgusting one targeted to people with religious affiliations.
The Who's Who gambit is a long-running, recognized telephone sales scheme about which there are a number of official warnings. There's a dizzying number of different Whos–many of which, I would guess, are run by the same people, though they're pretty good at making themselves seem separate. Here are just a few examples:
- United Who's Who (which has an unsatisfactory record with the Florida BBB for failing to respond to complaints) - International Who's Who Historical Society (ditto) - American Who's Who Association, which has a number of different schemes - Premier Who's Who (formerly Prestige Who's Who, also d/b/a America's Who's Who) - Emerald Who's Who - Madison Who's Who (this one also has an unsatisfactory BBB record) - Global Register's Who's Who (formerly National Register's Who's Who).
Frequently, the Whos are short-lived. Doctors' Who's Who and Nationwide Who's Who are now only Internet memories, but Google either of them and, as with the rest, you'll see people who list them as a professional credential. Ditto for Enterprise Who's Who–which suggests one reason for the schemes' short shelf life in the legacy of complaints it has left behind.
Back to Cambridge Who's Who. It's half of a two-headed hydra made up of Cambridge Who's Who (which previously did business as Manchester Who's Who and Empire Who's Who–according to a press release on Cambridge's website, these two have “merged” to become Cambridge) and Metropolitan Who's Who. Cambridge and Metropolitan do business separately, and have different websites, URL registry information, and mailing addresses. But their logo designs and their solicitation letters are identical (compare Manchester-now-Cambridge's letter with Metropolitan's)–as are their hard-sell telephone tactics.
People who answer the solicitations from Cambridge and Metropolitan report very similar experiences. (These links represent a fraction of the online discussions and complaints about Cambridge in particular.) A representative of the company phones them, congratulates them on the honor of their inclusion in the registry database, and conducts a lengthy interview, with many questions about careers, professional accomplishments, etc. Once the victim has been softened up by this process, the phone solicitor lowers the boom. The victim–who, remember, is under the impression from the initial solicitation letter that no costs are involved–is told that there are two levels of membership–a cheaper junior membership (currently close to $800) and a more expensive lifetime membership (currently nearly $1,000). This money, the victim is assured, isn't for inclusion in the database; it's for access to the database–which surely they're going to want to have, since the registry is a fantastic networking opportunity. To sweeten the deal, there are extras–gift certificates, airline ticket vouchers, a handsome award certificate, a media kit. If the victim expresses doubt about the cost, the solicitor says something like “You know what? Because I really don't want you to miss out on this fabulous opportunity, I'm going to offer you a lower rate! You'll only have to pay what a charity organization pays!” More hard sell tactics ensue. If the victim continues to resist, the solicitor hangs up on him or her–just like those magazine-sales scams where the people rudely blow you off the instant they realize you aren't going to fall for their line of bullshit.
I'm sure it won't surprise anyone to learn that Cambridge and one of its predecessors, Empire, have poor records with the Better Business Bureau (Manchester has no separate record). Empire's BBB report shows 57 complaints over the past 36 months, most involving (surprise, surprise) selling and refund practices. Cambridge's BBB report shows a stunning 150 complaints over the past 36 months, again involving selling and refund practices, and also billing and credit disputes. The bulk of the complaints–123 out of 150–have been made in the past 12 months.
Metropolitan's BBB report is currently being updated. When I viewed it in February (when I first began thinking about doing this post), it cited complaint patterns similar to Cambridge's. Some of the content of that report is reproduced by blogger T.J. at his dogscatskidslife blog.
Another thing Cambridge and Metropolitan share: a very poor reaction to criticism. The hydra really, really doesn't like it when people say bad things about it. When the Southern Conservative blog featured a satirical post about a solicitation letter from Metropolitan Who's Who, a threat of legal action quickly followed from one Cyndi Jeffers of Metropolitan (she also contacted people at the blogger's job). Blogger Shawn Olsen, whose description of his experience with Manchester Who's Who is linked in above, is being pursued by a lawyer hired by Manchester/Cambridge, who threatens a defamation lawsuit and demands $7 million in compensatory and punitive damages. These two bloggers appear not to be the only ones who've experienced this kind of harassment.
So here's my long-distance gift to all of you: a little dose of the good ol' Writer Beware suspicion that Rob has absorbed by proximity. “Money flows to the writer” is a good maxim to live by–but in cases of unexpected invitations, so is what Groucho Marx said: “I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” If you hear from a Who–and don't assume it will be one of those I've highlighted in this post, because I wouldn't be surprised if Cambridge, at least, were thinking it might be time for a name change–don't hesitate. Toss the letter straight into the recycling bin. That is, unless you want to make fun of it on your blog.
