Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 10:42:50 PST

• Next message: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Previous message: david: "Re: what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to"
• Maybe in reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Next in thread: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Reply: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

david <whatever_at_davidnicol.com> writes:

> The _anecdotes_ are identical.  The _text of the anecdote_ was
> edited for grammar, word choice, and punctuation btn the post and
> the repost.   Was there a material difference in either the story
> or the restriction? If there was I missed it.

The problematic text of 221:e is

-> and then later he referred to the second of the two identical
-> postings as if they weren't identical.

"Identical postings", not "identical anecdotes".  To call two postings
identical when one has been edited for grammar, word choice, and
punctuation over-strains the word "identical".

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

• Next message: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Previous message: david: "Re: what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to"
• Maybe in reply to: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Next in thread: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Reply: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST