[MR] pennsic independent

[Becky Day]

Yes.  I didn't bring copies of the paper home, but as I recall, one of the
later editions claimed to have some ridiculously high number of errors - I
think it was a joke.  However, there were a lot of errors in every edition,
so I can understand why people might have thought the 'contest' was legit.

Margret


On 8/9/08 1:30 PM, "David Wendelken" <david_wendelken at nc.rr.com> wrote:

> 
>>    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
> 
>