Typographic validation

Dear Bill,

I know you had to precis some of my report on the Symposium in Poznan [Crystallography in a Castle (Vol. 9 [4] p. 12, 2001)] but the final version had introduced into it over 30 typographical errors – most of them would be spotted readily by any English-speaking chemical-crystallographer proof-reader. Recalling how much effort I have spent correcting other people’s English, etc., I felt it rather ironic that my piece should be so mangled. I realize that editing is a big job and only a fraction of your responsibilities, but the number of errors almost justifies a note of regret in the next issue (I don’t know whether any other reports fared as badly). I attended the UK RSC* (not RS) Landmark event at Oxford in May 2001 [Hodgkon Laboratory (Vol. 9 [3] p. 11, 2001)]. Although this event in the University Museum was celebrated with wine, I didn’t notice any low-flying Hodgkons.

Dear Derry,

I am sorry about mangling your text so badly. I think we may have achieved an all time high for errors on a single page. At least I hope we don’t get much worse. I have a couple of proof readers who usually catch most of my errors. I would like to attribute it to the fact that we have been so far behind and rushing to catch up.