whitewashers don't have to put up with real solutions
someone nested in several layers of quotes said:
Is this an exclusive 'or' or an inclusive 'or'?
to which there is only one good reply: who's on first! *** al said:
Much of PG's assorted FAQs might be candidates for update, but the bulk of them have stood the test of time. The questions are, who's going to update them, how much argument from the cheap seats is going to ensue, and since two of the three main complainers in this forum don't submit anything anyway, why should any updater put up with those complaints?
hey wait, al, am i one of those "three main complainers"? if so, mr. haines, am i one of the two who "don't submit"? because, technically, i _have_ actually made a submission. moreover, i don't think i've ever lodged a complaint about a _f.a.q._, because i'm not sure what the point would be... and -- you know, i do really hate to be a nitpicker, but -- i think it's important to note that i don't just "complain", i also offer an _alternative_ that will _solve_the_problem_. finally, _i_prove_it_works,_right_in_front_of_your_face._ too bad that you'd usually stopped listening much earlier -- meaning you often miss the fact that proof is given -- because why should you "put up with those complaints"? -bowerbird p.s. that's what i'm asking! who's on first? p.p.s. yes! p.p.p.s. the cyberarchaeologists will have a field day with this thread. i swear they will laugh for a week and a half! i mean the _inclusive_ "and" when i say "week and a half".
al> why should any updater put up with those complaints? bb>>hey wait, al, am i one of those "three main complainers"? In practice the "main complainers" are not anyone who posts on this forum but rather: 1) The PP at DP who choose simply ignore PG recommendations and "do their own thing" at the same time DP is making noises about "going their own way" because they also find PG's current posting restrictions onerous. People at DP also cannot be happy that their efforts remain unreadable in practice on PG -- even though if they better understood the limitations of EPUB and MOBI devices and small displays in general they *could* be making "HTML" submissions which also reasonably target those machines. One of the noises that people at DP are making is how PG shreds their submissions and then allows other repackaging houses to redistribute those PG results with the PG designation removed -- but with the DP designation intact! 2) Real people who read PG works but don't read them from PG and may not even realize that they come from PG but rather read them from one or another repackaging houses which strip out the worse of the formatting issues in order to make those works more readable in practice on the devices that real people actually choose to read on nowadays. I guess I am naïve but I would have hoped that "the powers that be" at PG would realize that there *is* advantages to having real people read PG books directly from PG and thereby understand and acknowledge that those books in fact do come from PG and do not magically appear somehow out of the ether.
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jim Adcock