One cool thing about the Blogosphere is that you can actually go back and change what you have published, rather than just running a correction later, when rectification is called for. In my last post, I had originally written the following:
But if Mr. Dawson is deluding himself as to whether he is one of the "bosses" referred to, that’s nothing compared to Sen. John Land. When he says "The voters, next year, will be demanding change, and the days of Mark Sanford’s embarrassing legacy are numbered," he’s ignoring the rather large fact that there is no alternative within electoral striking distance of Mark Sanford. In electoral terms, it really doesn’t matter whether the governor is strong politically or not, until there is a viable alternative.
Correspondent "Clint" correctly pointed out that the story didn’t back up the idea that Katon Dawson thought he was a "boss." So I went back and changed that paragraph to read:
But Democrats (and disaffected Republicans, for that matter) are deluding themselves if they think that means Mr. Sanford is finished. When Sen. John Land says "The voters, next year, will be demanding change, and the days of Mark Sanford’s embarrassing legacy are numbered," he’s ignoring the rather large fact that there is no alternative within electoral striking distance of Mark Sanford. In electoral terms, it really doesn’t matter whether the governor is strong politically or not, until there is a viable alternative.
Why am I bothering to tell you this? Well, for one thing, I want my commenters to know I’m serious when I make the following plea to readers at the top of my blog:
So if you see mistakes, say something so I can fix them.
Also, while it is really cool to be able to go back and change what I’ve published after I’ve published it, it still seems a little like cheating to an old dead-tree guy such as myself.
Related Posts
We don’t want no cheating in the Blogosphere.
When they make a change after publication, some bloggers add a parenthetical remark indicating a change: “Revised based on comment received” or “Misleading characterization clarified.”
James Taranto over at Opinion Journal makes a correction to the original blog entry, then notes the correction in a subsequent entry, something like what you did. Here’s his method (last two bullets in first item):
This practice keeps everyone on the up-and-up and should assuage the conscience of those who labored long in the dead-tree realm.
I should add that Taranto’s referring to this Homer, not this one.
“Old dead-tree guy?” Didn’t “dead white males” used to write on dead-trees, too?
Hey, Tim! Where’ve you been?
Trying to get back in the game. A combination of word demands and strange potential career path changes curtailed blogging for a bit, but I’ve decided to throw caution to the wind and return to bitter invective!
Mike, I suspect he’s referring to BOTH Homers. The fact that this is what he calls his errors feature suggests that he’s evoking the Homer who says “Doh!”
The deliberate allusion to the highbrow Homer just lends greater irony — as well as suggesting that the author, though prone to error, is at least well-read.
I agree w/MikeC. For once . . .