Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



NM ([info]narcissam) wrote,
@ 2008-02-13 13:30:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Another Ridiculous Lexicon Detail
Melissa at TLC contacted Langford to check if the Ansible letter was really from SVA. Some people had doubts.

Melissa: As asked, I contacted and heard from David Langford as well. The email is accurate and came from his personal email address. The only "significant change," he said, besides routine formatting (caps, ital, etc.) was modifying 'The full text of the Lexicon book...' to 'A large portion of the Lexicon book text...' Apparently it emerged in the correspondence that "full text" wasn't quite accurate, and Steve suggested he edit the post say that a that large portion was available as pat of the filings from WB, which he did.
What this means:

In SVA's published letter to Ansible, there's the sentence, "A large portion of the Lexicon book text is available online as part of the filings from Warner Bros last week if you'd like to see what the final result looks like."

According to Langford, SVA's original draft said that "The full text of the Lexicon book is available online as part of the filings from Warner Bros." Langford obviously was skeptical that WB had put the whole book online, and got a correction on that from SVA before publishing.

What is going on? Did SVA want it to look more like he was being victimized by WB? Or is he just that clueless?


(Post a new comment)


[info]white_serpent
2008-02-13 10:09 pm UTC (link)
I'm willing to believe "clueless," actually. There hasn't been anything to disprove that hypothesis yet.

(Reply to this)


[info]puipui
2008-02-13 10:34 pm UTC (link)
I'm voting for clueless, as well. It's certainly backed by all available evidence.

(Reply to this)


[info]agent_hyatt
2008-02-14 12:07 am UTC (link)
Or is he just that clueless?

You mean that hasn't been proven over and over?

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map