Say what? Perhaps if you had limited your diatribe to "a couple of points," then the average reader might be able to comprehend what you are getting at
Or if the reader's point is well taken, the editor should simply correct the glitch in the next issue, as is done in newspapers, and let the complainers ply their trade on the Internet.
My "couple of points" are:
1. That on the historical aspect the gunwriting was faulty, resulting in McIntosh's disengenious claim (that "it remained for... my old friend... to demonstrate the [shotstring] phenomenom once and for all"). There's a resource out there by Burrard that he could've consulted. Or he ignored it.
2. His response to the reader providing the correction was ugly.
As for EDM's apologist-like attitude that evidently defends those who would get the important facts screwed up and make bold pronouncements based on a lack of research or on puffery, what can be said?
EDM, if you're all for helpful comments to posters as you did myself, then as a rule I wouldn't dumb that "average reader" down. That's what McIntosh did. And evidently many average readers saw through it, and disliked the elitist tone of his response. I'm not plying a complaint on the Internet but allowing consideration of this example as a reflection on writing. The complaint was the letter to the magazine, company, etc. If you wish to help me write better I ask you send me a re-write of my original post and I'll be sincerely grateful.
I give kudo's to the magazine for publishing both the writer's correction and McIntosh's reply.
