[MR] pennsic independent

[David Wendelken]

>    TWO - An early issue claimed 144 errors. That's an acceptable number
>for a paper the size of the PI, but 1066 intentioonal errors?  That's
>a bit excessive.  The problem I have with it is that more and more
>publications these days have more and more errors that AREN'T
>intentional and I find that level of poor grammar, spelling and
>punctuation a sad commentary on both the quality of these periodicals
>and papers and an even sadder commentary on the quality of our current
>educational standards.

How many errors did you say?

144?  That's gross. :)

1066?  Perhaps they were a bit hastings with the editing. :)

Think they might be pulling someone's leg?  I do.

andras salamandra