Re: Article on Tides
- From: "Matthew Ota" <otakenji@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Jun 2006 06:09:29 -0700
Fortunately, it is not listed in the table of contents and is buried
way back on page 30.
It almost looks like a space filler.
I will work with them to see if they will publish a letter from me
outlining the errors.
Matthew Ota
Edward Erbeck wrote:
Matthew Ota wrote:
Thank you for your editing. It would have been very helpful, but
unfortunatley the article went to press, and even worse, they did their
own editing. They removed the portion that discredited astrology, and
also removed key parts of the artcle so as to render other portions out
of context.
Worst of all, they left my name in, and this damages my credibility as
an astronomer.
I am very disappointed.
Matthew Ota
Matthew
Really sorry to read about the result of Your article.
Sounds to me like it's time for a Letter to the Editor explaining not
only the net result of their editing as it applies to the context, but also
how you foresee its effect on how others may view information you could
provide to the public in the Future.
Crazy Ed
.
- References:
- Article on Tides
- From: Matthew Ota
- Re: Article on Tides
- From: Dr John Stockton
- Re: Article on Tides
- From: Matthew Ota
- Re: Article on Tides
- From: Edward Erbeck
- Article on Tides
- Prev by Date: Re: Mexican UFO's
- Next by Date: Re: 95 years left
- Previous by thread: Re: Article on Tides
- Next by thread: 2004XP14: Potential threat?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|