Ahem.

Howell was entirely too kind to John Solomon in the same column.

1: That's not what the actual policy is, though.

I like the title of the article. "Accurate, but not the Whole Story" Kinda makes you, I dunno, not accurate?

Only 99 copies of Faulkner??

'smasher, is grammarpolice dead?

3: WMYBSALB?

Seems so. The host is working on the problem.

6: Because it's either that or proofread a stupid fucking chapter of a stupid fucking dissertation.

I'll proof your chapter at a reasonable rate.

8: Make someone else do it. Send a copy to your man!

I mean, for a reasonable rate of payment. I will also do it with reasonable quickness.

Or make Ben do it. Tell him you'll send him a picture of your tits, or something.

("Wit' dispatch, boss." "And wit' dese brass knuckles, boss.")

Where "proof" means "make the argument not fallacious."

Ok, then Ben's not the right person.

I might be available for some proofreading, too. $1 less than what w-lfs-n's charging.

Bastard.

You could really screw me by claiming to be charging $1.

Or less.

I was considering claiming to be charging nothing, but then what if Cala believed me?

Has anyone here ever read a newspaper article about something they had firsthand knowledge of, and not noticed substantial inaccuracies in the article?

Yes, but only when I also wrote the article.

Thanks, MSM.

I wouldn't really call Armsmasher a member of the Mainstream Media.

Or were you trying to subtly imply that he's gay?

Has anyone here ever read a newspaper article about something they had firsthand knowledge of, and not noticed substantial inaccuracies in the article?

Pretty much everything in The Economist about U.S. politics and culture. Oh and their China coverage is usually full of crap too.

Oh wait, I misread and skipped the "not" in H.L.'s sentence. So I guess my answer is ,"No, but some perpetrators are way worse than others," followed by the examples given in 24.