[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See LongSynopsis
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:57:30 -0500
OK, what I really meant was 'reveared', that is the word is in single
quotes, which suggest a non-standard, semantic value for the quoted
string.
G.
Guido D. Corona
IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
IBM Research,
Phone: (512) 838-9735
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
"E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
04/28/2004 03:09 PM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss
To
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long Synopsis
Please leave out the word revered.
Those frogs again! Ever since Aristophanes it has been The Frogs.
E.
At 03:23 PM 4/28/2004, you wrote:
> I will be more than delighted to leave the rigeurs of the "Patriot Act"
> to our revered and most diligent Federal Secretary of Justice.
>
>
>
>Guido
>
>
>
>Guido D. Corona
>IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
>IBM Research,
>Phone: (512) 838-9735
>Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
>http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
>
>
>
>
>"Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>04/28/2004 12:23 PM
>Please respond to
>bksvol-discuss
>
>To
>"bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>cc
>Subject
>[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fiction By Best Selling Author & See Long Synopsis
>
>
>
>
>Guido,
>Given all the other stuff that isn't nuked, I find it amazing that you'd
>seriously suggest nuking a file for a bad or missing synopsis. It would
be
>absolutely unforgivable, in my not so humble opinion, to nuke an
otherwise
>exellent quality text because a synopsis went missing. Sure, its nice to
>have meaningful synopses. but get real. Its hardly worth nuking the book
>because one is not present. A volunteer who is validating could possibly
>find one on amazon or Books A Million or bn.com, although I'm not sure of
>the later. Just look in the reviews for the ones that say "book
>description". those are taken from the book jacket and aren't copyright
>protected. I agree that the original submitter should do it. But if they
>don't, for heaven's sake, don't nuke the book just for that reason.
>
>If we're worried about providing quality to paid subscribers, then
nothing
>less then excellent quality texts should be allowed on the site. And then
>we'd irritate the folks who say, no! Any book is better than none at all.
>Mary
>
>
>
Other related posts:
