A message from the editor of 'Television'

"P. E. Dant" wrote in message
. uk...
Bill Wright wrote:
Subject: Television Magazine

"but it seamed"



Tut tut, and you an ex teacher Bill (

Well of course you realise that the spelling mistake was within a piece of
quoted text. It hit me in the eye but I didn't correct it. I thought it
deserved to remain, since it says something about modern journalists, or
people under stress, or maybe both.

Bill

On 2007-01-03, P. E. Dant wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
Subject: Television Magazine

"but it seamed"



Tut tut, and you an ex teacher Bill (

However, he didn't write that...

--
David Taylor

"madge" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:43:32 -0000, P. E. Dant
wrote:
My earliest copy of Television (Practical Television) is April 1950. I
actually started buying copies in the 70's for the DXTV column.

Gordon King is probably spinning in his grave.

I have to say thanks to Roger Bunney and Keith Hamer for introducing me to
the other side of TV.

I'd like to thank Roger and Keith, and also John and Tessa who made the mag
their own and gave it such a high standard of English thanks to proper
old-fashioned proofing.

It seamed appropriate to mention this.

Bill

PS: If you spot a spelling mistake in this message please don't write in
about it.

wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
Subject: Television Magazine

Sincere apologies for the mass nature of this email, but it seamed the
most
efficient way of getting the news out.

It's not clear whether this is part of the message you have published
here but anyway:-

If it *isn't* part of the original E-Mail then 'this' isn't
'email'.

Either way publishing the whole thing, unless you have permission,
seems a bit dodgy. Especially as (hence my confusion) it's not
terribly clear where the quoting of the original that you received
starts and ends.

Oh dear! Tut! Tut!

Sylvain.
--
Chris Green

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Dickie mint wrote:

I understood it!

How can you be sure? Bill could have used some quoting mechanism in his
post then nobody would have had to wonder, I won't go near OE so can't
really advise ...

And be advised it's not a good idea to criticise Bill on these forums :-)

Steady, or he'll need a larger hat ;-)

Not you again!

Sylvain.

Bill Wright wrote:

It seamed appropriate to mention this.
Bill
PS: If you spot a spelling mistake in this message please don't write in
about it.

No, awl your words are correctly spelt[1].

When was the decision to close made? Only just before Christmas did
arrive yet another reminder to renew my sub. - dated 20th Dec. and
signed by Boris S. as Editor (oh, and do take advantage of our
discounted 3-year subscription offer...). Has their left hand even met
their right?


[1] I know this because:

I have a spell chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marks for my revue
Miss takes I cannot sea
I’ve run this poem threw it
I’m shore your pleased two
No its perfect in it’s weigh
My chequer tolled me sew

--
Andy

In article ,
wrote:

Either way publishing the whole thing, unless you have permission,
seems a bit dodgy.

Don't be silly. It's not private, and it's not a creative work in any
but the most trivial sense. It would be very amusing to see the
author in court arguing that it deserved copyright protection - he'd
just look silly - but unlike you he probably wouldn't see any problem
with publishing it.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...


What's the correct number?

Bill


01322 611 308
and they say everyone with an outstanding subscription balance, will receive
a refund in due course.

Colin

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Either way publishing the whole thing, unless you have permission,
seems a bit dodgy.

Don't be silly. It's not private, and it's not a creative work in any
but the most trivial sense. It would be very amusing to see the
author in court arguing that it deserved copyright protection - he'd
just look silly - but unlike you he probably wouldn't see any problem
with publishing it.

I don't suppose the originator would be too worried, that wasn't my
point really. I just felt that it wasn't very clear which parts were
quoted and which weren't and that, as a consequence, the originator
wasn't properly acknowledged. I.e. I felt Bill could have been a bit
more polite about it by acknowledging the original properly.

--
Chris Green

Bill Wright wrote:

"P. E. Dant" wrote in message
. uk...
Bill Wright wrote:
Subject: Television Magazine

"but it seamed"



Tut tut, and you an ex teacher Bill (

Well of course you realise that the spelling mistake was within a piece of
quoted text. It hit me in the eye but I didn't correct it. I thought it
deserved to remain, since it says something about modern journalists, or
people under stress, or maybe both.

If it was really clear what was quoted and what wasn't I'd agree with
you! :-)

--
Chris Green