Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: In Moderation: A Moderator's Response
Message-ID: <41372@bbn.COM>
Date: 13 Jun 89 16:29:36 GMT
References: <41197@bbn.COM> <12113@well.UUCP> <10348@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 18

In article <10348@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:
}In article <12113@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <pokey@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
}
}>Other issue: editing someone's message without their consent is, of
}>course, inexcusable.
}
}Oh?  Would it be necessary to quote your entire article, unedited, just
}to ask if this is really true?

It is the difference in meaning between _editing_ and
_excerpting_.  Yes, broadly editing can include excerpting, but editing
that is OK _only_ to the extent that it is excepting (and even then, only
excepting with a purpose) is better called 'excepting', and by contrast if
just unqualfied 'editing' is used, I presume (as did Jef, I think) that the
broader term was used because of broader intent.  An 'intent' which is _not_
appropriate.

  /bernie\