From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sch=E4fer?= Subject: Re: article abour Reiser4 on linux.com Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:47:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20060809094708.GA21342@wintermute> References: <87bqqzbaug.fsf@baldur.nicundtas.de> <44D5B43D.3060501@namesys.com> <1154904931.6553.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D99CA9.9040807@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK" Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44D99CA9.9040807@namesys.com> List-Id: To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02:28 Wed 09 Aug , Hans Reiser wrote: > >Unfortunately, it's not one of which editors approve. It too easily > >looks as though the writer is being influenced by the source.=20 > > =20 > > >=20 > >If I were to do so, I'd risk being banned from publication.=20 Uhm... interesting. It's not that I have so much experience with the press (just three interviews so far), but everytime I got the article for review before publication. It is considered as good manners here to avoid misquoting. Of course the can always opt to disregard any changes, but in reality this procedure is just like a two phase interview with the goal to improve accuracy. If you didn't trust the source in the first place, why should you bother to take information from it at all? If you do trust it, why not ask again? Just my (humble and uninformed) $0.02 8-) -Andreas --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE2a8cxQzSAzXqsyYRAmTmAJkBkDDIYKNyc85UMaA4b+Qu+nJTNwCfY0aa 3wLNhJbWVaaHY8dbivJZhX0= =g1jf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK--