Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Or ask them to delete their changes in favour of the original text?
I take it back
I was too hasty
And this is how you do it:
I'm with him.
usually they're just being self important
but his response is the most amazingly hysterical and narcissistic thing I can imagine.
Seems the subs might have been justified if a slightly crude double-entendre at the end of a restaurant review isn't inkeeping with The Times' editorial standards (which the subs are there to uphold).
It's a comical overreaction though. What a tit.
What a spectacular cunt.
The way he's analysed it you'd think that someone had torn through a stanza of exceptional poetry or something.
I like neither him or his sister, for what it's worth.
'WONdering WHERE to GO for a NOSH'
'WONdering WHERE to GO for NOSH'
Seems the same either way. But maybe it should be:
'WONderING where TO go FOR a NOSH'
That was obviously what he was going for. Fucking subs.
i simply WON'T believe it
Wheres the offenting article?
He does explain that further down the letter...
This guy overreacts a bit doesnt he.
he's so wrong.
For a paper, if you ask the sub they'll say: I'm going with house style because the editor will bollock me, unless it's something very easily explained to them that makes perfect sense.
If it's anything that will cause them to be cautious talk to the section editor directly.
Yes, if you have a decent reason to. Unless the sub is useless, they'll usually have made any changes for a reason.
if you think they've fucked something up
If it is a point of grammar, however, probably just house style and not worth fighting over.
You need to be enough of a grown up to accept that you might not be important enough for anyone to heed your request, mind.
screamed bloody mary at how his article had been treated:
"Listen mate. You get the glory, we get the power. Now fuck off."
but it's all just part of the package for working on a publication. If you don't like the rules/editorial decisions of the publication you write for - tough shit. That's jobs for you.
if you're that precious, go be an author.
(until the point where you're to successful for us to order you around, at which point you'll be free to sabotage your career with your horrible, meandering, bloated work)
blog would have been a better example, or self-publishing
Subbing is a stultifying and thankless task though and the arrogance of a lot of journalists/writers towards them is often breathtaking. I almost prefer Coren's attitude to the one of not bothering to do any proof-reading yourself and then throwing a hissy fit when the editor doesn't pick all the errors up themselves.
If I make a mistake in my copy and it goes into print, I feel like a dick - I don't blame someone else for not picking it up.
not a mistake.
The sentence as written was grammatical and correct, so what really was there to judge? I don't buy the argument about house style one jot; I don't believe they have an entry for that one obscure word.
The simplest and most likely reason for the change was that the sub was unaware that the wording as written was valid, and wrongly assumed that the "a" was a typo.
Obviously none of that alters the fact that Coren (famously) overreacted like a big baby, but the letter itself at least proves that if a mistake was made it wasn't by him.
without the a is better as it removes the pretty silly double entendre (no matter whether he intended it) and that is what the sub decided. both are grammatically acceptable. sub well within his/her rights to change despite that fact.
either way you're correct, important thing is that cohen was a boob.
I reckon the only person in the world who identified it was the self-satisfied cock who wrote it.
true, though i must say my sub spidey sense tingled when i read that last sentence.
either way, it gave us a cracking toys out of the pram episode.
I was talking about the hypothetical principle of having a go at someone for not noticing a mistake you were responsible for yourself.
I didn't go back to them in the end about the changes they'd made to the article as they were only minor. Still think my version was better though.
it's a four day course
(^^niche database joke for you there)