Erratum: International Union of Crystallography Newsletter, Volume 5, Number 3, 1997

On page 6 in my report, given for the NATO Advanced Study Institute in Electron Crystallography (Held in Erice, Sicily), the following oddly corrupted statement was printed:

" ... motivated by the rapid growth of the use of this powerful technique for studying microcrystalline materials was conducted in polluted water on the ASI on Direct Methods ... "

Nowhere in my original typescript of the meeting report was anything so phrased that it could have led to a distortion to this curious phrase, even by condensation!

We were, of course, grateful, to have our ASI take place concurrently with the ASI on Direct Methods for Solving Macromolecular Structures because the numerous cross-interactions were stimulating and productive. We felt very positive about the joint sessions with X-ray crystallographers, because we are interested in similar problems and are still learning that we can share common techniques.

To reflect our true feelings from the very beginning, I wish, therefore, to change the above statement (the product of a printer's devil, no doubt, the one who also plagued the medieval calligrapher) to:

" ... motivated by the rapid growth of the use of this powerful technique for studying microcrystalline materials was conducted in the friendly neighborhood of the ASI on Direct Methods ... "

To: Suzanne Fortier, Paola Spadon, Lodovico Riva di Sanseverino and Douglas Dorset:

My most sincere apologies to all of you. The presence of the phrase "polluted water" in the text of the Newsletter version of Doug Dorset's report is due to my editing and atrocious handwriting. In editing Doug's 650 word report to 270 words I abridged some text with the intention of having it read: An Advanced Study Institute on Electron Crystallography motivated by the rapid growth of the use of the powerful techniques for studying microcrystalline materials was conducted in parallel with an ASI on Direct Methods for Solving Macromolecular Structures. A copy of my notation on the page in question is below. When Sally Lunge tried to read my appalling handwriting she read the intended insertion "was conducted in parallel with ... " as "was conducted in polluted water ... ". Somehow neither Jane Griffin nor I caught this in the various proofreading stages.