Text 6400, 77 rader
Skriven 2007-09-20 13:17:52 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
   Kommentar till text 6332 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: FidoNews 24:38 [02/06]: Editorial
=========================================
Hello Michiel.

20 Sep 07 10:07, you wrote to mark lewis:

 MV> Hello mark,

 MV> On Wednesday September 19 2007 22:43, you wrote to me:

 ml>>> we've seen two sides to those stories... one side saying that
 ml>>> they sent articles and the other side saying they never arrived
 ml>>> but neither side can prove anything and it all falls into
 ml>>> nothing more than "did too. did not" type childish squabbling
 ml>>> and there's still no papertrail to follow :(

 MvdV>>> So what it boils down to is that the allegations that the
 MvdV>>> editor rejects articles are just that: allegations.

 ml>> if an article is sent in and not published, is that not a reject?

 MV> No. For it to be rejected, it needs not only be send, but received as
 MV> well.


 ml>> even if nothing is sent back stating so?

 MV> If no ack is sent back would that not indicate it was not received?

 MvdV>>> So why are so many people acting as if it were fact?

 ml>> you tell me? you're articles seem to get published...

 MV> But then I am smart enough to figure out how to use crash mail....

 ml>> in some instances certain rebutals(?) to articles posted in the
 ml>> same issue as the rebutal??

 MV> Oh? Did such instances happen?

 ml>> rebutals should be posted in following issues of the newsletter
 ml>> just like in real life ;)

 MV> In real life in this part of the world it is not uncommon for
 MV> newspapers to ask the 'other side' for comment before publishing an
 MV> article and to publish that comment in the same issue. In fact it is
 MV> considered good journalism to provide opportunity to both sides before
 MV> publishing about a controversial issue.

     If it were standard practice Michiel. I would have less of a problem
with it. But that doesn't seem to be the case now does it? The current
editor has made it clear that how people are treated depends on several
factors. A couple of which being if the editor likes that person and where
that person happens to be from. Two things that all the defending and
excusing isn't going to change. The current editor is biased in how he
treats people. A behavior that is unacceptable in the position of an editor.
And a behavior that contributes to the lack of articles being submitted.
No, not all of the blame for the lack of articles falls upon the editor
but he is a contributer because of his actions and behavior.


 MV> In talk shows it is the rule rather than the exception to have
 MV> representatives of both sides at the same table.

    That is not th issue Michiel. Fair and equal unbiased treatment
of everyone is the issue. An ability that the current editor does not
have or has but chooses not to use. Either way the Fidonews suffers as
a result.


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin:  (1:14/5)