🚀 go-pugleaf

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.