Lee Passey wrote:
Mr. Adcock points out that the production process at Distributed Proofreaders is broken, and offers a sample demonstrating how it is broken. In response, Mr. Garcia removes the sample from the standard process and deals with it as a special case. In other words, instead of trying to fix the broken process, Mr. Garcia has simply tried to neutralize the complaint!
It's telling that based on zero knowledge you first assume (wrongly) that I am not working on improving the DP process, and then compound the error by assuming that addressing a volunteers issue constitutes "neutralizing" a complaint, all the while ignoring the rest of the message which outlined the full situation instead of the narrowly spun perspective you present. I'm sorry you believe that DP has nefarious intent in responding to a situation where a volunteer believed they had no recourse. Since I can't believe that you think ignoring that issue would have somehow been better, I am forced to conclude that your only concern is the spin you've tried to put on it. Congratulations on winning a bet for me that someone would attempt to do exactly that. :) David (donovan)