I think there's another error here--I see you referring to a July 10 story in the Washington Post citing the Senate Intelligence Committee on Joe Wilson. But I believe you are referring to a July 10, 2004 story. I'm familiar with this story because I've been blogging about it ever since a July 27 (2005) story appeared in the Post by Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei repeating the original claim that Wilson found no evidence about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger (while the Senate committee found the opposite, as that July 10 2004 story by Susan Schmidt explained).
I just discovered your editorial and subsequent comments about this so I have not yet untangled the difference, if any, between my comments and the Daily Howler's. But at a minimum I think you should make it clear--unless you have, and I'm missing it-that the "July 10" story you reference is from last year.
August 11, 2005
6:25 PM
David Cullen writes:
Mr. Temple,
Why did use choose to use "inappropriately duplicated wording" instead of "plagiarized"? The word "plagiarized" is an apt description for the writer's actions.
You write like a public relations manager rather than an editor. Try reading "The Complete Plain Words" by Sir Ernest Gowers rather the "corporate-speak' manuals that you are apparently well-acquainted with. Pathetic.
August 11, 2005
6:27 PM
David Cullen writes:
CORRECTION
Mr. Temple,
Why did you choose to use "inappropriately duplicated wording" instead of "plagiarized"? The word "plagiarized" is an apt description for the writer's actions.
You write like a public relations manager rather than an editor. Try reading "The Complete Plain Words" by Sir Ernest Gowers rather the "corporate-speak' manuals that you are apparently well-acquainted with. Pathetic.
August 8, 2005
8:27 AM
Christopher Fotos writes:
I think there's another error here--I see you referring to a July 10 story in the Washington Post citing the Senate Intelligence Committee on Joe Wilson. But I believe you are referring to a July 10, 2004 story. I'm familiar with this story because I've been blogging about it ever since a July 27 (2005) story appeared in the Post by Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei repeating the original claim that Wilson found no evidence about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger (while the Senate committee found the opposite, as that July 10 2004 story by Susan Schmidt explained).
I just discovered your editorial and subsequent comments about this so I have not yet untangled the difference, if any, between my comments and the Daily Howler's. But at a minimum I think you should make it clear--unless you have, and I'm missing it-that the "July 10" story you reference is from last year.
August 11, 2005
6:25 PM
David Cullen writes:
Mr. Temple,
Why did use choose to use "inappropriately duplicated wording" instead of "plagiarized"? The word "plagiarized" is an apt description for the writer's actions.
You write like a public relations manager rather than an editor. Try reading "The Complete Plain Words" by Sir Ernest Gowers rather the "corporate-speak' manuals that you are apparently well-acquainted with. Pathetic.
August 11, 2005
6:27 PM
David Cullen writes:
CORRECTION
Mr. Temple,
Why did you choose to use "inappropriately duplicated wording" instead of "plagiarized"? The word "plagiarized" is an apt description for the writer's actions.
You write like a public relations manager rather than an editor. Try reading "The Complete Plain Words" by Sir Ernest Gowers rather the "corporate-speak' manuals that you are apparently well-acquainted with. Pathetic.