cdsm@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) (12/13/88)
In article <ALF.88Dec8135435@hathor.sics.se> alf@sics.se (Thomas Sj|land) writes: > >I agree with ROK on the issue of publishing texts in paper form >without asking the author for permission. After all most of us are >easily reachable via the net. BTW, I think the idea of publishing >an edited copy of the net discussions is an excellent idea, but >I think I would like to consider the formulations more carefully >if I knew that they were possibly going to occur in a paper. I obviously need to apologize for my cavalier approach since both of the main sources for the first issue feel the same about it. I certainly don't want to stop people expressing their opinions on the net! But from the responses I've got people do generally seem to appreciate the column. Can I suggest an approach? In future I will send a note to everyone who's contribution may appear in the column. If I get a reply in reasonable time disagreeing with the inclusion of their contribution I won't print it. If they want to make changes then I'll try and oblige. I put it that way since I'm not sure about the implications. Personally I find the net a rather unreliable means of communications: great when it works, but messages can take weeks or get lost; why, I don't know. (I just received a message today from Germany that took 6 days). >The swedish vowel in my name transcribed oe (an 'o' with two dots >above) was heavily mishandled since it got printed as the ASCII >character with the same code, namely '|'. This one did puzzle me: I didn't know if it should have an umlaut or a slash, so decided to leave it alone. It rather underlines the discussion above. I _should_ have mailed you. Sorry. Chris Moss.
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/16/88)
In article <541@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) writes: >Can I suggest an approach? >In future I will send a note to everyone who's[sic] contribution may >appear in the column. If I get a reply in reasonable time disagreeing >with the inclusion of their contribution I won't print it. If they >want to make changes then I'll try and oblige. Fine with me, provided it is amended to "If I get a reply _agreeing_ with the inclusion of their contribution I _will_ print it". [I'll be off the net for a while, so I hereby give Chris Moss permission to quote any of my postings without asking me until my first posting next year.]
cdsm@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) (01/05/89)
In article <875@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <541@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) writes: >>In future I will send a note to everyone who's[sic] contribution may >>appear in the column. If I get a reply in reasonable time disagreeing >>with the inclusion of their contribution I won't print it. If they >>want to make changes then I'll try and oblige. >Fine with me, provided it is amended to "If I get a reply _agreeing_ with >the inclusion of their contribution I _will_ print it". [I'll be off the >net for a while, so I hereby give Chris Moss permission to quote any of >my postings without asking me until my first posting next year.] The reason I framed it negatively was to cover the case of not getting a reply. Unfortunately if I delete my original statement and use Richard's version then negation as failure gives the wrong answer. Reply My proposal Richard's proposal agrees publish publish no reply publish ? presumably not disagree not publish not publish OK Richard, I'll ADD your statement to mine! Chris Moss.