--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 2006, at 3:49 PM, bob_brigante wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Taking responsibility only means something if the person > > > > taking it changes their behavior for the better. My guess > > > > is, they'll simply be more careful next time, nothing much > > > > else will change. They don't give an apology or pledge not > > > > to do it again. > > > > > > > > > and apologizing for the error that led to its release. > > > > > > > > Bingo. The error was in the release, not in the editing. > > > > > > To my mind, the big error wasn't the editing per > > > se, but the fact that they didn't say anything > > > about the fact that changes had been made, or > > > indicate the changes by enclosing them in square > > > brackets, which really is de rigeur. > > > > > > > If it was meant to be read out loud, that hardly matters. > > I do believe I said "say anything about the fact > that changes had been made." >
Few people read newspaper articles verbatum. It's at least as de rigeur to abreviate/ ammend/summarize as you read out loud
