Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
> >"The reviewer did not substantiate his impression >before expressing it in the review, and a subsequent >inquiry by the PG found no support for the assertion." > >Gee, with a correction like that, no wonder they let >ol' Pete have equal time. What subsequent inquiry? >Quit ruining the King's English and apologize >already...Where's Edwin Newman when you need him? > >>No lawsuit. >> >>I don't think you realize how damning this is that the >>editors in charge allowed the aggrieved party to have >>at the offender this way. It reflects very well on >>the often-smacked down Shribman that this situation >>was handled the way it was. Not only is it more than >>adequate to alleviate any potential legal liability on >>the PG's part, it is a devastating blow to Hoover's >>credibility. Read his bio on the paper's website. It >>goes on so long you expect him to tell you his blood >>type. I can understand the bashings that Millman >>often gets over here. But Hoover, who has been around >>a lot longer, is in many ways worse. Given his age and >>experience, he should know better. Given his ego, >>he'll never learn. >> >>I sit here watching this drama unfold and wonder why >>>anybody has yet to bring up this nugget of >>information. >>> >>>It's really a perfect example of how one mistake in >>>any newspaper can be fatal. Can you imagine the fate >>>of the PG if a lawsuit were to be filed? >>> >>> >>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09116/965297-109 >. >>s >>>tm">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09116/965297-109.s >t >>m >>></a>

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.