This was hilarious---I should have showed you both versions of this: the one I
wrote first, in white hot, blistering, fuming embarrassingly apoplectic anger,
screaming about how the WSJ totally violated their own mission statement in
Scheck's article ("a re-excretion of the feculent anti-metric humor of the last
century"), and the one attached, which I like a whole lot better. By moving a
couple of sentences around, changing a few words, and deleting two other
sentences, I changed a vitriolic attack on the WSJ into the reasonably positive
statement here. So, what happened is that I got a chance to read my own anger,
and I didn't like that very much. I took you guys' advice that we must do our
best to capitalize on this publicity, and still left myself room for
justifiable constructive criticism of Scheck's article. Thanks for all of
your help.Paul
WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE COVERS USMA.doc
Description: MS-Word document
