I believe you are referring to Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award.
He'd have a field day today! Paula Zieselman, Fulbright & Jaworski
L.L.P., NYC
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995 JilloHen@aol.com wrote:
> Kathleen, this is in reply to why does Shepards do some of the dumb things
> they do. Even though you will probably receive a sugar coated reply from
> them if they bother to reply at all (they usually don't), I still have to
> think they charge you this because they figure they can gouge you with it
> anyway.
>
> Think about some of the other unconscionable acts they've pulled lately,
> namely their latest marketing scheme, replacing the Federal Reporter and
> Federal Supplement . I can understand why the Federal Reporter needed
> replacing, picking up book after book after book is annoying and they refuse
> to go to a pocket part system in which you would pick up only two volumes
> (plus the monthly cumulative volume) to shepardize one item. BUT THE Federal
> Supplement? You picked up one hardbound volume, the 91-92 hardbound
> supplement, and then the soft bound editions. Did the Federal Supplement
> really need to be replaced?
>
> AND IF you do agree to buy this set on one of their overpriced plans, they
> are offering you **free** :--( subscriptions to some of their other sets. Did
> you not quit subscribing to those other sets because you did not need them
> anyway, so why do you wish to pick them back up again? Why does Shepard not
> offer you a price break for the Federal Citators? How much extra money is it
> costing them to offer you these *free* resubscriptions? Do you really
> believe the cost of the *free* resubscriptions are not built into the cost of
> what you will pay to get a redone version of the Federal Citators?
>
> What about sending you all three of the softbound monthly cumulative editions
> of the Supreme Court Citators, when you only need one, and being told to
> *just throw away the two which you do not need*. You have been forced to pay
> for the destruction of countless trees only to be told to throw their
> unnecessary by products into the trash.
>
> Last, but not least. What about their increasing the frequency with which
> you receive issues or those *express* citators which come in the middle of
> the month. Even if you do not want them you are forced to accept and pay for
> them.
>
> Since 1992, the United States Supreme Court Citators have increased by @117%
> and the Texas Cases citators have increased by @42%. Since other publishers
> have not increased this much I fail to see justification for these increases.
>
>
> Well, time to get off the soap box and go to work. Too bad the Congress (or
> was it the old TV show, Laugh-In) does not have those Golden Fleece Awards
> anymore (don't remember if this was their name or which senator awarded them
> ), I would certainly know who to nominate. Maybe, the ALA needs to adopt
> some program whereby they can nominate the most reprehensible act of the year
> by a legal publisher for a special *BOO TO YOU* prize.
>
> But in the meantime, I'm waiting for someone to step into the ring and give
> them some stiff competition or to investigate them because of their
> unconscionable and very unreasonable business practices. Until then . . .
>
> Jill Finley Henderson
> Taylor County Law Library
> Abilene, Texas
> jillohen@aol.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST