Re: Stereophile
- From: "ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Aug 2005 11:29:33 -0700
Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> > George applied his criterion to the letters.
> > I chose to apply that same criterion to the staff writers
> > and found similar results.
> > They are not accorded the courtesy of having their words
> > presented without editing, nor are they presumed to be experts
> > in their field by virtue of their credentials.
> > If you feel the criterion is flawed in the application to
> > staff writers then it must be similarly flawed for letters.
> > So... is your complaint with the criterion or with the
> > results when applied to staff writers?
> >
> > ScottW
>
>
> Come on Scott, virtually all magazines (note, this is
> not about scientific journals) edit their writers.
So do comic books.
> And it is you who presume them to not be experts.
I don't presume anything. I certainly don't presume them to be
experts by virtue of their position of writer.
> Nowhere has it been presented that the editor makes the same presumptions.
Not presuming them to not be experts does not lead to presuming them
to be experts. What's your point?
ScottW
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stereophile
- From: Clyde Slick
- Re: Stereophile
- From: George M . Middius
- Re: Stereophile
- References:
- Re: Stereophile
- From: ScottW
- Re: Stereophile
- From: Jenn
- Re: Stereophile
- From: ScottW
- Re: Stereophile
- From: Jenn
- Re: Stereophile
- From: ScottW
- Re: Stereophile
- From: Jenn
- Re: Stereophile
- From: ScottW
- Re: Stereophile
- From: Jenn
- Re: Stereophile
- From: ScottW
- Re: Stereophile
- From: Clyde Slick
- Re: Stereophile
- Prev by Date: Re: Morbid Katrina predicitons
- Next by Date: Re: Stereophile
- Previous by thread: Re: Stereophile
- Next by thread: Re: Stereophile
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|