How many copies of each title do you think a publisher

[samiaseo222]

Leads one to believe that perhaps Revisionist Press may actually be based on this old selection of books, and may explain why Gordon Press has held onto over one hundred stale joint dancing titles they share with Revisionist Press, while discarding thousands of other more marketable titles. has for books like these if they are to keep Amazon.com supplied with enough books to promise shipping in 24 hours, or even three weeks for that matter? How many copies of 10 volume sets costing over $9,000.00 do they have in stock?

How many of these single volume $9,995.00 books does Gordon Press have on hand just in case world-wide demand should pick up? How much money does it take to finance an operation like this, assuming it is real? Curiously, the January 2000 Global Books In Print associates a second ISBN with Revisionist Press for a 1985 book on Latin-American phone number list dancing: ISBN 0-685-10688-8. The price is listed at $66.00. In a similar manner, Gordon Press is using another ISBN for its latest titles being show-cased by Amazon.com: ISBN 0-87968-358-9. Surprisingly, the publisher identifier of this code is the same for a publisher by the name Krishna Press. This means that Gordon Press and Krishna Press are the same company.

Actually, this ISBN 0-was used by Gordon Press back in the 1970’s. Books using this ISBN tend to be listed with author as well as title. This suggests that there may be real books and a real company associated with the ISBN beginning 0-87968-xxx-x. In most cases, the ISBN seems to be more significant than the name used by the publisher, and it may be that prefers Gordon Press to use this real ISBN rather than the 0-8490-xxxx-x which seems not to be genuine. Most of the titles purged from the Gordon Press data-base appear to have used this 0-8490-xxxx-x ISBN. My guess is that those associated with this "black-bag" operation have recently tried to give this scam at least a credible appearance of reality, but in doing this they are implicating the reputations of real organizations such as Bowker’s, and the Library of Congress.