Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #1911 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-23 12:06 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-03-23 19:23 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-23 12:06 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-23 12:11 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-23 14:43 +0000
Re: ebooks Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-03-23 16:14 +0000
Re: ebooks root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2014-03-23 18:09 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-23 19:21 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-23 20:34 +0000
Re: ebooks Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2014-06-13 14:14 -0400
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-13 21:44 +0100
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-13 16:53 -0400
Re: ebooks Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-06-14 08:37 +0100
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-14 18:34 -0400
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-15 10:40 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-15 12:05 +0100
Re: ebooks Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-06-15 11:20 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-15 12:37 +0100
Re: ebooks root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2014-06-15 17:48 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-15 15:59 -0400
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-16 06:30 +1000
Re: ebooks Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2014-06-16 04:04 -0500
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-16 11:44 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-16 10:32 -0400
Re: ebooks Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2014-06-16 10:43 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-16 13:13 -0400
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-17 06:45 +1000
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-17 06:36 +1000
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-15 22:43 +0000
Re: ebooks Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-06-15 23:26 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-16 22:01 +0100
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-15 06:27 +1000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-23 19:09 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-24 01:55 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 10:35 +0000
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-24 13:01 -0400
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-24 17:15 +0100
Re: ebooks Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-03-24 15:07 +0000
Re: ebooks Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-03-24 17:13 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-03-24 13:07 -0500
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-24 13:28 -0500
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-24 21:48 +0100
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:57 +0000
Re: ebooks "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 08:14 +1100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 00:01 +0000
Re: ebooks "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 07:17 +1100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 23:44 +0000
Re: ebooks "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 12:01 +1100
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-26 13:36 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-26 20:08 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-24 14:48 -0400
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-25 18:13 -0400
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 01:20 -0400
Re: ebooks Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-03-25 05:49 +0000
Re: ebooks Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-03-25 07:06 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-03-25 08:19 -0500
Re: ebooks Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-03-25 09:40 -0400
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-26 11:14 +1100
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-25 15:42 -0400
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-25 11:47 -0500
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-25 19:25 -0400
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-26 12:19 -0400
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 08:25 -0500
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-26 16:01 -0400
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-26 20:38 +0000
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 08:19 +1100
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 15:58 -0500
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-27 06:28 -0400
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-26 22:03 +0100
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 00:46 -0400
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-26 15:01 -0500
Re: ebooks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-03-26 20:57 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-27 13:23 +0000
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-27 17:48 +0100
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-27 08:26 -0500
Re: ebooks greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-27 14:55 +0000
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-27 10:05 -0500
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-27 11:55 -0500
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-27 14:25 -0500
Re: ebooks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-03-27 20:44 +0000
Re: ebooks Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-28 01:38 +0000
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-27 22:37 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 23:52 -0400
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-28 16:07 +1100
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-28 10:52 -0500
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-28 11:57 -0500
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-28 14:41 -0500
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-28 21:27 +0000
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-28 17:02 -0500
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-28 23:46 -0400
Re: ebooks Philip Shaw <jnufcvyvuc@tznvy.pbz> - 2014-04-02 01:32 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-02 14:28 +0000
Re: ebooks Philip Shaw <jnufcvyvuc@tznvy.pbz> - 2014-04-07 05:32 +0000
Re: ebooks "John" <j@j.j> - 2014-04-17 16:36 -0700
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-04-02 07:31 -0800
Re: ebooks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-03-26 13:38 +0000
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 11:14 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 00:56 -0400
Re: ebooks Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2014-03-27 16:52 +0000
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-27 14:03 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 23:07 -0400
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-27 21:44 +0100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-26 13:51 +0000
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-26 09:22 -0800
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-26 13:54 -0500
Re: ebooks davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2014-03-27 03:41 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-03-27 07:36 -0400
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-28 03:40 -0400
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-27 17:59 +0100
Re: ebooks Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-03-26 15:38 -0700
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-26 22:09 -0400
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-27 13:55 -0500
Re: ebooks Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-28 02:27 +0000
Re: ebooks cb@bobby.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2014-03-28 10:42 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 23:12 -0400
Re: ebooks Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-03-28 23:17 -0700
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-26 16:06 -0400
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-26 09:19 -0800
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-26 13:50 -0500
Re: ebooks Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-03-26 20:00 +0000
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-26 13:30 -0800
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 15:51 -0500
Re: ebooks Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-26 13:09 -0600
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-26 19:23 -0400
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-27 08:12 +1100
Re: ebooks despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-03-26 19:24 -0400
Re: ebooks Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-26 23:40 +0000
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-27 06:36 -0400
Knuth/TeX (was Re: ebooks) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-27 14:33 +0000
Re: Knuth/TeX (was Re: ebooks) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-27 14:01 -0500
Re: ebooks rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2014-03-27 03:10 +0000
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-25 08:19 -0500
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:16 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 13:32 +0000
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-25 15:20 +0000
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-25 15:49 -0400
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-25 15:58 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 01:46 -0400
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-25 08:48 -0800
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-25 21:20 +0000
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-26 07:31 +1100
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-25 08:42 -0400
Re: ebooks Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-24 12:52 -0600
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-24 20:12 -0400
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-24 15:54 -0500
Re: ebooks Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> - 2014-03-24 22:19 +0000
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-25 07:54 +1100
Re: ebooks scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-03-24 16:21 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-24 17:02 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-03-24 12:21 -0500
Re: ebooks Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-24 19:50 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:48 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-24 23:42 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:07 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 23:40 +0000
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-26 21:57 +0100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-28 13:58 +0000
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-28 15:44 +0100
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 11:35 +1100
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 07:28 +1100
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:31 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 00:06 +0000
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 07:06 +1100
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-24 10:25 -0400
Re: ebooks Mike Sanders <mike@taco-shack.cow> - 2014-03-24 06:04 +0000
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-26 13:17 +0100
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-23 19:23 -0400
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 22:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj1e2k.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1955 |
On 2014-03-24, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-03-24, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> I had occasion to work with real editors on two occasions, both for >> technical writing and I was just amazed at how they could increase the >> quality. I think I had other editors too, but they weren't visible to me >> and I didn't actually talk to them. >> >> I have an idea for a program the world needs. A spell checker that makes a >> list of words that you allowed them to change. In anything of any size I can >> easily allow two or three changes I did not really want. maybe that will be >> in the first Word Processor to exceed the 1 TB barrier. > > That's an excellent idea. > > The "out of the box" behaviour of various packages leaves a lot to be > desired, particularly with regard to so called "smart quotes" and emdash. > Those are just the examples which caused me grief. I am sure there are > other examples. My examples: > > 1) Web sites which contain snippets of code, where double quotes and/or > single quotes are automatically converted to "smart quotes" by the > publishing process. The results are not valid code and are a real pain > in the neck if you want to copy and paste them to prove them out. > > 2) I haven't looked at OpenOffice since LibreOffice came out, but OpenOffice > would silently apply spelling autocorrections to spreadsheet data. > The one that got me was the silent conversion of hypen to emdash, and > it wasn't discovered until we tried importing some spreadsheet results > into a database. Set a 'style' for 'code' or 'data'; any block so styled will not be 'parsed' or 'formatted' but left exactly as entered - perhaps in 'fixed width' even if everything else is 'proportionally spaced' and 'kerned'. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 08:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpbljfFisj5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1946 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:bpbbq6FgmrkU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Walter Banks" wrote: > >> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. > > I think the last three editors in the world work for _The New Yorker_. > Everything else seems to be kbd -> word processor -> spell checker -> > consumer. No, that is not the case with people like JK Rowling and we know that because she has said so very explicitly. > I had occasion to work with real editors on two occasions, both for > technical writing and I was just amazed at how they could increase the > quality. I think I had other editors too, but they weren't visible to me > and I didn't actually talk to them. > > I have an idea for a program the world needs. A spell checker that makes > a list of words that you allowed them to change. In anything of any size I > can easily allow two or three changes I did not really want. maybe that > will be in the first Word Processor to exceed the 1 TB barrier. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 00:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj1hqn.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1958 |
In message <bpbljfFisj5U1@mid.individual.net> Lanto J. <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:bpbbq6FgmrkU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Walter Banks" wrote: >> >>> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >>> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >>> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >>> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. >> >> I think the last three editors in the world work for _The New Yorker_. >> Everything else seems to be kbd -> word processor -> spell checker -> >> consumer. > No, that is not the case with people like JK Rowling and > we know that because she has said so very explicitly. You do not need publishers to have editors. -- What the hell's goin' on in the engine room? Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 07:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpe6ksF4r0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1964 |
"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message news:slrnlj1hqn.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local... > In message <bpbljfFisj5U1@mid.individual.net> > Lanto J. <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:bpbbq6FgmrkU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> "Walter Banks" wrote: >>> >>>> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >>>> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >>>> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >>>> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. >>> >>> I think the last three editors in the world work for _The New Yorker_. >>> Everything else seems to be kbd -> word processor -> spell checker -> >>> consumer. > >> No, that is not the case with people like JK Rowling and >> we know that because she has said so very explicitly. > > You do not need publishers to have editors. Didn’t say you did. I just said that her work isn't kbd -> word processor -> spell checker -> consumer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 23:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj456r.17j7.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1988 |
In message <bpe6ksF4r0lU1@mid.individual.net> Lanto J. <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: > "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > news:slrnlj1hqn.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local... >> In message <bpbljfFisj5U1@mid.individual.net> >> Lanto J. <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:bpbbq6FgmrkU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> >>>> "Walter Banks" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >>>>> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >>>>> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >>>>> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. >>>> >>>> I think the last three editors in the world work for _The New Yorker_. >>>> Everything else seems to be kbd -> word processor -> spell checker -> >>>> consumer. >> >>> No, that is not the case with people like JK Rowling and >>> we know that because she has said so very explicitly. >> >> You do not need publishers to have editors. > Didn’t say you did. I just said that her work isn't kbd -> > word processor -> spell checker -> consumer. I suspect very few books fit that pattern. Maybe the Twilight fan-fiction porn series (I forget the title, something about the color grey), or maybe Twilight itself, but both of those are barely literate writing, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover they were "written" by a somewhat advanced perl script. -- 'It's still a lie. Like the lie about masks.' 'What lie about masks?' 'The way people say they hide faces.' 'They do hide faces,' said Nanny Ogg. 'Only the one on the outside.' --Maskerade
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 12:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpen80F86psU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2000 |
"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message news:slrnlj456r.17j7.g.kreme@amelia.local... > In message <bpe6ksF4r0lU1@mid.individual.net> > Lanto J. <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message >> news:slrnlj1hqn.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local... >>> In message <bpbljfFisj5U1@mid.individual.net> >>> Lanto J. <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:bpbbq6FgmrkU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Walter Banks" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >>>>>> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >>>>>> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >>>>>> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. >>>>> >>>>> I think the last three editors in the world work for _The New Yorker_. >>>>> Everything else seems to be kbd -> word processor -> spell checker -> >>>>> consumer. >>> >>>> No, that is not the case with people like JK Rowling and >>>> we know that because she has said so very explicitly. >>> >>> You do not need publishers to have editors. > >> Didn’t say you did. I just said that her work isn't kbd -> >> word processor -> spell checker -> consumer. > I suspect very few books fit that pattern. Yeah, I do too, if only getting someone else they know who isnt a professional editor to at least proof read it. Maybe the Twilight > fan-fiction porn series (I forget the title, something about the color > grey), or maybe Twilight itself, but both of those are barely literate > writing, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover they were > "written" by a somewhat advanced perl script. Bet they weren't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 13:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj5lud.973.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2000 |
On 2014-03-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <bpe6ksF4r0lU1@mid.individual.net> Lanto J. > <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message >> news:slrnlj1hqn.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local... >>> In message <bpbljfFisj5U1@mid.individual.net> Lanto J. >>> <lantoj78@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:bpbbq6FgmrkU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Walter Banks" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >>>>>> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >>>>>> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >>>>>> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. >>>>> >>>>> I think the last three editors in the world work for _The New >>>>> Yorker_. Everything else seems to be kbd -> word processor -> >>>>> spell checker -> consumer. >>> >>>> No, that is not the case with people like JK Rowling and we know >>>> that because she has said so very explicitly. >>> >>> You do not need publishers to have editors. > >> Didn’t say you did. I just said that her work isn't kbd -> word >> processor -> spell checker -> consumer. > > I suspect very few books fit that pattern. Maybe the Twilight > fan-fiction porn series (I forget the title, something about the color > grey), or maybe Twilight itself, but both of those are barely literate > writing, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover they were > "written" by a somewhat advanced perl script. "Mills" and "Boon" are actually the hardware (forked from Babbage's mill) and software (forked from Boole's mathematics) of a machine for making slush fiction. The original was powered by rabbits harnessed to a capstan, and could generate risqué one-line jokes at the rate of about one a week; later models could generate limericks and with monkeys instead of rabbits output increased to commercially viable levels. This created enough income for development to accelerate dramatically, first to steam power and now electricity. The machine resides in a modest stately home Somewhere In England, powered by electricity from converted water-mills on the estate and basking in an ambience created by yokels employed to wander about wearing assorted vintage clothes and practicing various lost rustic crafts or maintaining the collection of obsolete farm machines and old cars and carriages and weapons. The programmers and technicians of course live in the Big House and get the best costumes. These peripheral activities also function as a "front" for the operation, giving the appearance of a mere Tourist Attraction, which has the side-effect of introducing the essential randomness and novelty for the fiction to retain a certain "freshness". -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.xdch7zsro4et73@dell3100> |
| In reply to | #2016 |
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:36:13 -0000, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: [] > > "Mills" and "Boon" are actually the hardware (forked from Babbage's > mill) and software (forked from Boole's mathematics) of a machine for > making slush fiction. The original was powered by rabbits harnessed to > a capstan, and could generate risqué one-line jokes at the rate of about > one a week; later models could generate limericks and with monkeys > instead of rabbits output increased to commercially viable levels. This > created enough income for development to accelerate dramatically, first > to steam power and now electricity. > > The machine resides in a modest stately home Somewhere In England, > powered by electricity from converted water-mills on the estate and > basking in an ambience created by yokels employed to wander about > wearing assorted vintage clothes and practicing various lost rustic > crafts or maintaining the collection of obsolete farm machines and old > cars and carriages and weapons. The programmers and technicians of > course live in the Big House and get the best costumes. > > These peripheral activities also function as a "front" for the > operation, giving the appearance of a mere Tourist Attraction, which has > the side-effect of introducing the essential randomness and novelty for > the fiction to retain a certain "freshness". > Splendid! -- It's a money /life balance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 14:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1403241421370.8531@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #1945 |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Walter Banks wrote: > > Rich wrote: > >> In comp.misc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:35:24 +0000 >>> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Creative types are adaptable and will eventually find new ways of >>>> earning from their work, but the intermediaries who depend on both >>>> the creators and the consumers co-operating with them, will have to >>>> work out some new way to survive, otherwise they will vanish. We >>>> can expect them to fight very hard, and possibly 'dirty', to >>>> preserve themselves. >> >>> I would be perfectly happy to see the intermediaries vanish >>> and the creators benefit directly from the consumers. As far as I'm >>> concerned they only exist to funnel creations in one direction and >>> money in the other, if they can be rendered obsolete so much the >>> better. >> >> How very true. The intermediaries served a purpose when "publishing" >> involved needing to apply ink to paper, bind the result into a book, >> ship the book to a seller, etc. >> >> The internet allows for the creators to sell directly to the consumer, >> with no intermediary necessary for "distribution" purposes. That is >> what is seriously disrupting the market for music, books, and films. >> And so much the better. The intermediaries are no longer necessary. > > Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works > in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the > expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have > (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. > I think that's something we are losing track of. The "gatekeepers" did keep out things that should have been seen, but at the same time, there's a whole lot that should never be seen. In the internet age, there is endless opportunity to promote a show or whatever, by the artist, or by getting the audience involved. But in the internet age, anyone can proclaim themselves an "authority" but lack the skill or experience to do as good a job as the reviewers for the local paper. I'm not troubled by amateurs writing about things that interest them, I think that's a good thing, but I am troubled by people who proclaim themselves experts who by their writing don't have the experience. So as old media falls, instead of people with the skillset who rise up, people feel a need to emulate old media, yet without that experience. Like I wrote someone last year "But then replicate the worst of old media, that it's mediated, yet hey, no money to pay the writers?" The way I saw the internet 20 years ago was that it would be parallel to old media, keep those good reviewers paid by the papers reviewing, but then have amateurs who felt under represented in old media write about what they loved. But old media has been demolished, in part because it felt a need to compete with the internet, and yet for many people who came late to the internet, the only model they have is old media. I remember in 1997 or 98 posting in the local newsgroup about the regional science fair, that tended to get press after it was over, meaning the public missed the event. That was something I felt needed changing. I suddenly remember that the regional science fair here is happening right now, and I've not seen one bit about it yet. And the websites that have risen pretending to be different (except not being paid) haven't covered it either. Yes, the internet gives a soapbox to all, but it hasn't really built up good local clusters where people trip over things beyond their interest becuase someone has posted about it and that post is right in front of them. The people rushing to emulate old media on the internet tend to be just like old media, except getting paid. So yes, anyone now has a chance to publish their book or music, but it doesn't mean it's worth listening to or reading. Probably for a small percentage they deserve a chance but missed out before, while we now have to wade through it all to find what's good. Everyone repeats back "information wants to be free" but forgets the second part of Stewart Brand's article, "information wants to be expensive". So many have just been swept along with change, rather than picking and choosing what they want. A lot of the old is gone not because there was something inherently wrong with it (though there were things that weren't perfect), but because everyone wanted free. "Folk knowledge" passes easily, so everyone can justify the fall of record companies because "everyone knows that the record companies were unfair, hardly any money got to the artists". That's how the bootlegging was justified, and that's how buying one song at a time online is justified, compared to an album that may have had a lot of work put into making it a complete package. I'm not sure this future is a good thing. I loved it 17 years ago when a local, Emru Townsend, put up a page of famous and interesting black people for black history month, he wanted to put something up because he felt the need. He didnt' see it as a chance to be noticed in old media (at some point the internet became Schwab's Drugstore, where you hang out hoping to be noticed by old media), or for a potential book deal, he did it to make change. I've seen that in people, their good work online not pretensious because they were actually being paid to write in the real world, their online work really good because they were good. While others have come along taking on badges, assuming the badge is what counts, yet unable to say much because they haven't paid attention for enough time, so they constantly talk about being "media" and all that. I want to be able to read my local paper every morning, I want to be able to get music at the record store, I want to buy books that have passed some selection process so I can have a reasonable expectation that it will be worth the money. Let the amateurs have the internet, just don't pretend that that porn you are writing is worth any money. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 18:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5331ff9a$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> |
| In reply to | #1948 |
In <alpine.LNX.2.02.1403241421370.8531@darkstar.example.org>, on 03/24/2014 at 02:48 PM, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> said: >But in the internet age, anyone can proclaim themselves an >"authority" but lack the skill or experience to do as good a job >as the reviewers for the local paper. That may have been relevant when the local paper saw itself primarily as a news organ, but it's not your grandfather's local paper, and standards have disappeared. These days it's entertainment and selling advertising. Sturgeon's law applies just as much to the dead tree media as it does to the Internet. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-27 01:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1403270118130.14705@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #1993 |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In <alpine.LNX.2.02.1403241421370.8531@darkstar.example.org>, on > 03/24/2014 > at 02:48 PM, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> said: > >> But in the internet age, anyone can proclaim themselves an >> "authority" but lack the skill or experience to do as good a job >> as the reviewers for the local paper. > > That may have been relevant when the local paper saw itself primarily > as a news organ, but it's not your grandfather's local paper, and > standards have disappeared. These days it's entertainment and selling > advertising. > > Sturgeon's law applies just as much to the dead tree media as it does > to the Internet. > That is the other side of the story. I can complain about that blogger who just reposts a press release, but I also do see (and have complained) about the local paper that does the same. It's a complicated thing, because newspapers came early to the internet so they wouldn't be left out, but didn't really have any strategy, so it just canibalized them, so now they are trying to compete with what's on the internet, rather than be strong and an alternative. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 05:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20140325054909.075f1927b122401093f1eab9@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #1945 |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:07:09 -0500 Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works > in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the > expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have > (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. True, but I see no reason that editors couldn't become freelancers working for authors on commission. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 07:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lgr9t8$37o$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1966 |
On 2014-03-25 05:49, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:07:09 -0500 > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. > > True, but I see no reason that editors couldn't become freelancers > working for authors on commission. The idea of editors (working for a publisher, not for the author) being indispensable seems unique to the written word. AFAIK art galleries do not hire someone to tell visual artists how to make their work "better", while the equivalent in (art) music has generally acted as little more than a proofreader before handing the composer's manuscript to (in pre-computer days) an engraver. The development of music software has enabled many composers to self-publish their music: IMO this hasn't led to a flood of poor-quality music, but has given composers a route to the public which does not go through a very conservative publishing industry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 08:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5331825C.169EC269@bytecraft.com> |
| In reply to | #1967 |
Hils wrote: > On 2014-03-25 05:49, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:07:09 -0500 > > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > > > >> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works > >> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the > >> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have > >> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. > > > > True, but I see no reason that editors couldn't become freelancers > > working for authors on commission. > > The idea of editors (working for a publisher, not for the author) being > indispensable seems unique to the written word. Could they become freelancers, sure and some are. The role of editors play for the most part in written word is to re-craft material for effective communication. > AFAIK art galleries do > not hire someone to tell visual artists how to make their work "better", > while the equivalent in (art) music has generally acted as little more > than a proofreader before handing the composer's manuscript to (in > pre-computer days) an engraver. The editor role diminishes a lot as the word content moves from primarily communication to art. An architect has support from engineers for parallel example. > The development of music software has enabled many composers to > self-publish their music: IMO this hasn't led to a flood of poor-quality > music, but has given composers a route to the public which does not go > through a very conservative publishing industry. The internet has opened a lot of promotion and distribution doors. And allowed a great deal of experimentation some successful most not so much w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 09:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-D5C738.09404425032014@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #1971 |
In article <5331825C.169EC269@bytecraft.com>, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: Editors > Could they become freelancers, sure and some are. The role of editors > play for the most part in written word is to re-craft material for effective > > communication. But for a writer trying to break in, or marginally successful financing is key. How can an editor would have to be paid up front, or finance it himself. As it is the editor is paid by the publisher and the publisher takes the risk which can be spread over many books, some do great, other recoup their cost with perhaps a small profit and others lose money, but the publisher hopes to profit on the whole. Less now than in the past unfortunately, another reason for the fall of publishing. -- Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpekgdF7mhmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1974 |
"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message news:proto-D5C738.09404425032014@news.panix.com... > In article <5331825C.169EC269@bytecraft.com>, > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > Editors >> Could they become freelancers, sure and some are. The role of editors >> play for the most part in written word is to re-craft material for >> effective >> >> communication. > > But for a writer trying to break in, or marginally successful > financing is key. Not really. It doesn’t cost that much to employ a freelance editor and some are happy to work on commission. > How can an editor would have to be paid up front, Not necessarily, some do that sort of thing on a commission basis and have always done it that way. or > finance it himself. As it is the editor is paid by the publisher and > the publisher takes the risk which can be spread over many books, some > do great, other recoup their cost with perhaps a small profit and > others lose money, but the publisher hopes to profit on the whole. And doing the editing on commission works that way too. > Less now than in the past unfortunately, another reason for the fall > of publishing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 15:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lgs85i$n8f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1971 |
On 03/25/2014 09:19 AM, Walter Banks wrote: > > > Hils wrote: > >> On 2014-03-25 05:49, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:07:09 -0500 >>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Publishers also provide editing services that puts authors works >>>> in a form that can be understood by the intended audience in the >>>> expected context. That is a skill set that very few authors have >>>> (even very good ones). Editors also rarely make good authors. >>> >>> True, but I see no reason that editors couldn't become freelancers >>> working for authors on commission. >> >> The idea of editors (working for a publisher, not for the author) being >> indispensable seems unique to the written word. > > Could they become freelancers, sure and some are. The role of editors > play for the most part in written word is to re-craft material for effective > > communication. > >> AFAIK art galleries do >> not hire someone to tell visual artists how to make their work "better", >> while the equivalent in (art) music has generally acted as little more >> than a proofreader before handing the composer's manuscript to (in >> pre-computer days) an engraver. > > The editor role diminishes a lot as the word content moves from > primarily communication to art. An architect has support from > engineers for parallel example. Punctuation and spelling are still important. An otherwise good book is diminished by mis-spellings that spellcheckers can't catch - reign vs. rein vs. rain, for example. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 11:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lgsbu5$p0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1979 |
On 25-Mar-14 14:42, Peter Flass wrote: > On 03/25/2014 09:19 AM, Walter Banks wrote: >> The editor role diminishes a lot as the word content moves from >> primarily communication to art. An architect has support from >> engineers for parallel example. > > Punctuation and spelling are still important. An otherwise good > book is diminished by mis-spellings that spellcheckers can't catch - > reign vs. rein vs. rain, for example. Human editors aren't perfect either; even bestsellers with huge budgets still usually contain errors that should have been caught, often even after multiple printings. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 19:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5332107c$10$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> |
| In reply to | #1979 |
In <lgs85i$n8f$2@dont-email.me>, on 03/25/2014 at 03:42 PM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> said: >Punctuation and spelling are still important. An otherwise good >book is diminished by mis-spellings that spellcheckers can't >catch - reign vs. rein vs. rain, for example. Sure, and in some alternate universe where the publishers' editors catch those errors, I'd be all for it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 12:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lgugjs$6cr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2011 |
On 03/25/2014 07:25 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In <lgs85i$n8f$2@dont-email.me>, on 03/25/2014 > at 03:42 PM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> said: > >> Punctuation and spelling are still important. An otherwise good >> book is diminished by mis-spellings that spellcheckers can't >> catch - reign vs. rein vs. rain, for example. > > Sure, and in some alternate universe where the publishers' editors > catch those errors, I'd be all for it. > I occasionally find such errors in professionally published stuff, but it's rare - finding one in a book is unusual, although errors are getting more common. Self-published stuff seems to have a factor of ten or more errors. Somewhat more telling, a lot of self-published stuff lacks organization. I'm thinking of one book in particular where the information is all there, and is interesting and informative, but pieces of it seems to be scattered. A good editor would probably have reorgnized it in more sensible order. Often the author is either too close to the book, writes it in sections, or just gets tired of reworking it, -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web