#Login Register


  • 5 Vote(s) - 2.6 Average
Home 


fed's prawn project
12-30-2013, 05:50 PM #16
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Quote:The romance fiction market "has been impervious to the overall economic recession, with faithful readers spending up to $40 a month" on romance novels in 1982.[96] That year, paperback romances totaled $300 million in sales, and the total audience was estimated at 20 million readers. A survey of 600 regular romance readers the same year "found that they mirror the general population in age, education, and marital and socioeconomic status." Over half of the women had at least some college education, and 40% were employed full-time. 60% of the women surveyed read at least one romance every two days. The women admitted to reading romances as an antidote to stress, for mental escape, and to learn about history and new careers.[97]

The romance novel market continued to expand, so that by 1991, they comprised 46% of all mass market paperbacks sold in the US. This expansion was due in part to voracious readers, with over half of Harlequin's customers purchasing 30 novels per month. By this time, the romance novel audience had become more educated, with 45% having a college degree, and more than half of the audience worked outside the home.[98]

By the 2000s, romance had become the most popular genre in modern literature. In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales, with 7,311 romance novels published and making up 13.5% of the consumer book market. Over 74 million people claimed to have read at least one romance novel in 2008, according to a Romance Writers of America study. Nine point five percent of romance readers identified themselves as male, and the study reported that romance readers were more likely to be married or living with a partner. Of the entire American population, 24.6% read at least one romance novel in 2008.[30]

It's a big market jb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_novel
12-30-2013, 05:55 PM #17
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
I wouldn't know..that is not on my reading list..hug.gif

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
12-31-2013, 03:11 AM #18
Wayne5 Member
Posts:660 Threads:61 Joined:Nov 2013
(12-30-2013, 05:27 PM)j browsing Wrote:  our veterens just had their pensions cut..and our unemployed did not have their unemployment funds extended so they could buy food and pay for housing and folks receiving food stamps had their amount cut ..so how can the government justify spending money on cultural pursuits ??? blink.gif

rofl.gifI keep telling you, that cut doesn't happen for two (2) years and will never happen anyway.
This money will put food on the table of some starving artist. I object to engineers getting tax payer money to develop weapons we don't need and they are not going to listen to me as well.

on a lighter note, you nailed the dream thread, I am impressed.

cheers.gif
12-31-2013, 03:34 AM #19
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
bleh.gif chuckle.gif hug.gif

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
12-31-2013, 08:22 AM #20
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-30-2013, 05:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well, in re-reading your OP it appears this has been going on since 2010 and is classified as more an academic (scholarly) historical pursuit in the understanding of that particular genre.

I'm about to pull my hair out. gaah.gif

Who cares what they call it? It's taxpayer money fer cryin' out loud! The government has no business funding the curiosities of those researchers. Government officials should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, not spending it on this sort of piffle.

The researchers can spend their own money on this if they wish and then sell their results if someone like you wants to buy it.

Pray for me. hug.gif
12-31-2013, 02:36 PM #21
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(12-31-2013, 08:22 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 05:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well, in re-reading your OP it appears this has been going on since 2010 and is classified as more an academic (scholarly) historical pursuit in the understanding of that particular genre.

I'm about to pull my hair out. gaah.gif

Who cares what they call it? It's taxpayer money fer cryin' out loud! The government has no business funding the curiosities of those researchers. Government officials should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, not spending it on this sort of piffle.

The researchers can spend their own money on this if they wish and then sell their results if someone like you wants to buy it.

Quote:In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales
... that was in 2008, just how much money does your gov't haul in via taxes on that 1.37 billion? And they can't give $1 M back over a three year period?
01-02-2014, 08:58 AM #22
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-31-2013, 02:36 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 08:22 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 05:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well, in re-reading your OP it appears this has been going on since 2010 and is classified as more an academic (scholarly) historical pursuit in the understanding of that particular genre.

I'm about to pull my hair out. gaah.gif

Who cares what they call it? It's taxpayer money fer cryin' out loud! The government has no business funding the curiosities of those researchers. Government officials should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, not spending it on this sort of piffle.

The researchers can spend their own money on this if they wish and then sell their results if someone like you wants to buy it.

Quote:In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales
... that was in 2008, just how much money does your gov't haul in via taxes on that 1.37 billion? And they can't give $1 M back over a three year period?

No. Not one red cent.

We are a government of laws that are based on our Constitution. The Constitution explains the limited powers that the government has.

The gov't - according to that Constitution - has no permission to spend a penny on this type of project. Spending taxpayer money on projects that are not authorized by the Const. are supposed to be illegal.

Not even if the results might amuse you, entertain you or educate you, are such expenditures justified.

There are an endless number of so-called worthy projects that would like to get funding. They should look to private sources. If you have a million dollars or more and wish to fund it, then you have every right to do that.

Or if the authors of the grant want to take the task upon themselves and bare the economic risk, they could also do that.

But the gov't has no right to enslave me or you by forcefully taking a portion of the money you or I earn to spend it on a project like that or any other unauthorized project.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-02-2014, 08:52 PM #23
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-02-2014, 08:58 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 02:36 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 08:22 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 05:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well, in re-reading your OP it appears this has been going on since 2010 and is classified as more an academic (scholarly) historical pursuit in the understanding of that particular genre.

I'm about to pull my hair out. gaah.gif

Who cares what they call it? It's taxpayer money fer cryin' out loud! The government has no business funding the curiosities of those researchers. Government officials should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, not spending it on this sort of piffle.

The researchers can spend their own money on this if they wish and then sell their results if someone like you wants to buy it.

Quote:In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales
... that was in 2008, just how much money does your gov't haul in via taxes on that 1.37 billion? And they can't give $1 M back over a three year period?

No. Not one red cent.

We are a government of laws that are based on our Constitution. The Constitution explains the limited powers that the government has.

The gov't - according to that Constitution - has no permission to spend a penny on this type of project. Spending taxpayer money on projects that are not authorized by the Const. are supposed to be illegal.

Not even if the results might amuse you, entertain you or educate you, are such expenditures justified.

There are an endless number of so-called worthy projects that would like to get funding. They should look to private sources. If you have a million dollars or more and wish to fund it, then you have every right to do that.

Or if the authors of the grant want to take the task upon themselves and bare the economic risk, they could also do that.

But the gov't has no right to enslave me or you by forcefully taking a portion of the money you or I earn to spend it on a project like that or any other unauthorized project.

One would assume the gov't bases their decision to give back a fraction of tax revenue for R&D on the level of popularity or continuing interest from the citizens.
01-03-2014, 03:07 AM #24
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-02-2014, 08:52 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-02-2014, 08:58 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 02:36 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 08:22 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 05:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Well, in re-reading your OP it appears this has been going on since 2010 and is classified as more an academic (scholarly) historical pursuit in the understanding of that particular genre.

I'm about to pull my hair out. gaah.gif

Who cares what they call it? It's taxpayer money fer cryin' out loud! The government has no business funding the curiosities of those researchers. Government officials should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, not spending it on this sort of piffle.

The researchers can spend their own money on this if they wish and then sell their results if someone like you wants to buy it.

Quote:In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales
... that was in 2008, just how much money does your gov't haul in via taxes on that 1.37 billion? And they can't give $1 M back over a three year period?

No. Not one red cent.

We are a government of laws that are based on our Constitution. The Constitution explains the limited powers that the government has.

The gov't - according to that Constitution - has no permission to spend a penny on this type of project. Spending taxpayer money on projects that are not authorized by the Const. are supposed to be illegal.

Not even if the results might amuse you, entertain you or educate you, are such expenditures justified.

There are an endless number of so-called worthy projects that would like to get funding. They should look to private sources. If you have a million dollars or more and wish to fund it, then you have every right to do that.

Or if the authors of the grant want to take the task upon themselves and bare the economic risk, they could also do that.

But the gov't has no right to enslave me or you by forcefully taking a portion of the money you or I earn to spend it on a project like that or any other unauthorized project.

One would assume the gov't bases their decision to give back a fraction of tax revenue for R&D on the level of popularity or continuing interest from the citizens.

I must have missed that in the Constitution. What page is it on?

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-03-2014, 03:53 AM #25
Softy Incognito Anonymous
 
(01-03-2014, 03:07 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-02-2014, 08:52 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-02-2014, 08:58 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 02:36 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 08:22 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  I'm about to pull my hair out. gaah.gif

Who cares what they call it? It's taxpayer money fer cryin' out loud! The government has no business funding the curiosities of those researchers. Government officials should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, not spending it on this sort of piffle.

The researchers can spend their own money on this if they wish and then sell their results if someone like you wants to buy it.

Quote:In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales
... that was in 2008, just how much money does your gov't haul in via taxes on that 1.37 billion? And they can't give $1 M back over a three year period?

No. Not one red cent.

We are a government of laws that are based on our Constitution. The Constitution explains the limited powers that the government has.

The gov't - according to that Constitution - has no permission to spend a penny on this type of project. Spending taxpayer money on projects that are not authorized by the Const. are supposed to be illegal.

Not even if the results might amuse you, entertain you or educate you, are such expenditures justified.

There are an endless number of so-called worthy projects that would like to get funding. They should look to private sources. If you have a million dollars or more and wish to fund it, then you have every right to do that.

Or if the authors of the grant want to take the task upon themselves and bare the economic risk, they could also do that.

But the gov't has no right to enslave me or you by forcefully taking a portion of the money you or I earn to spend it on a project like that or any other unauthorized project.

One would assume the gov't bases their decision to give back a fraction of tax revenue for R&D on the level of popularity or continuing interest from the citizens.

I must have missed that in the Constitution. What page is it on?

First page,,,

Pursuit of Happiness...

(:X
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
01-03-2014, 04:02 AM #26
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
Actually,,,that is the,,,

Declaration of Independence,,,

don't matter,,,

still counts...

(:X
01-04-2014, 09:21 AM #27
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-03-2014, 03:53 AM)Softy Wrote:  
(01-03-2014, 03:07 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-02-2014, 08:52 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-02-2014, 08:58 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 02:36 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  ... that was in 2008, just how much money does your gov't haul in via taxes on that 1.37 billion? And they can't give $1 M back over a three year period?

No. Not one red cent.

We are a government of laws that are based on our Constitution. The Constitution explains the limited powers that the government has.

The gov't - according to that Constitution - has no permission to spend a penny on this type of project. Spending taxpayer money on projects that are not authorized by the Const. are supposed to be illegal.

Not even if the results might amuse you, entertain you or educate you, are such expenditures justified.

There are an endless number of so-called worthy projects that would like to get funding. They should look to private sources. If you have a million dollars or more and wish to fund it, then you have every right to do that.

Or if the authors of the grant want to take the task upon themselves and bare the economic risk, they could also do that.

But the gov't has no right to enslave me or you by forcefully taking a portion of the money you or I earn to spend it on a project like that or any other unauthorized project.

One would assume the gov't bases their decision to give back a fraction of tax revenue for R&D on the level of popularity or continuing interest from the citizens.

I must have missed that in the Constitution. What page is it on?

First page,,,

Pursuit of Happiness...

(:X

The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to pursue happiness - it does not say the taxpayers have to fund your pursuit.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-04-2014, 02:59 PM #28
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(12-30-2013, 05:50 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
Quote:The romance fiction market "has been impervious to the overall economic recession, with faithful readers spending up to $40 a month" on romance novels in 1982.[96] That year, paperback romances totaled $300 million in sales, and the total audience was estimated at 20 million readers. A survey of 600 regular romance readers the same year "found that they mirror the general population in age, education, and marital and socioeconomic status." Over half of the women had at least some college education, and 40% were employed full-time. 60% of the women surveyed read at least one romance every two days. The women admitted to reading romances as an antidote to stress, for mental escape, and to learn about history and new careers.[97]

The romance novel market continued to expand, so that by 1991, they comprised 46% of all mass market paperbacks sold in the US. This expansion was due in part to voracious readers, with over half of Harlequin's customers purchasing 30 novels per month. By this time, the romance novel audience had become more educated, with 45% having a college degree, and more than half of the audience worked outside the home.[98]

By the 2000s, romance had become the most popular genre in modern literature. In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales, with 7,311 romance novels published and making up 13.5% of the consumer book market. Over 74 million people claimed to have read at least one romance novel in 2008, according to a Romance Writers of America study. Nine point five percent of romance readers identified themselves as male, and the study reported that romance readers were more likely to be married or living with a partner. Of the entire American population, 24.6% read at least one romance novel in 2008.[30]

It's a big market jb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_novel

"By the 2000s, romance had become the most popular genre in modern literature. In 2008, romantic fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales..."

With $1.37 BILLION in sales, what would be the gov't's take...I don't feel like doing the math right now. So, they gave back $1 MILLION over 3 years for R&D in this area...so, I believe the taxpayers in this area have paid for this R&D in it's entirety.
01-04-2014, 03:10 PM #29
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,992 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
Did you know There’s An Author On Amazon Who Writes Romance Novels About Women And Dinosaurs chuckle.gif

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/so...vels-about

I'm sure you could come up with some steamy stuff.
01-04-2014, 03:15 PM #30
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
Good morning Octo. Dinosaur sex? I would probably go with reptilian alien sex. chuckle.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com