On Tue, January 13, 2009 5:21 pm, jtd said: > On Tuesday 13 January 2009 17:02, Atanu Datta wrote: > >> >> Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution, >> > >> > What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has >> > comments scrapped from the web without human intervention. >> >> Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, >> Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements >> made in the public by a such an such person published in some other >> media. That's attribution. > > Neat how do explain the truncation.
The readers can go and read the source, that's the whole purpose of providing a source. duh! >> >> otherwise >> >> it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a >> >> story/article for something those words which form an option is >> >> attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs >> >> a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already >> >> published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which >> >> is what happened in this case. >> > >> > Afaik there was no reference to the source. >> > (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference >> > to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point >> > out), implying that he said that the product was very good, >> > whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you >> > make no metion of. >> >> So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse >> the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am >> ready to own up in public here. Savvy? > > Google Rony Bill LFY ilug-bom Thanks! So, here's the full text: This month's LFY has the Mandriva 2009 distro DVD plus another DVD that has more than 200 Free Software for Windows. The magazine too has some nice articles. I liked the one that explains GRUB in detail. The DVD packaging is good. LFY's getting more and more interesting. From: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.mumbai/28730 That's the whole post... and I believe it was published in its entirety. I wonder what negative aspects about LFY from the comment have we truncated. > >> >> If you think we've done >> >> something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, >> >> you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media >> >> company that you think abides to a proper journalistic >> >> procedure. >> > >> > I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to >> > go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you >> > achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the >> > comments that show what readers think about you. >> >> lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our >> aim totally wrong. > > Heck nothing wrong in aiming high in comparison to being aimless. And how do you explain truncation here? > >> >> > anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks >> > back. >> >> Whatever you mean by this statement... > > EFY / LFY does not seem to change. lol!! You needn't have explained that statement. Should learn how to read between the lines. Best, Atanu -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
