GeorgeGaskill Wrote:
===================================
> I think the same applies to photography. If
> you are making art, you can do anything you
> want with the image. If you are recording hist-
> ory, it should be left as is or it isn't really history.
>
Russo Loco Replied:
===================================
> It's hard to argue with that, George -
>
> But sometimes historians are constrained by
> the limitations of their media - such as an au-
> thor whose publisher will allow only so many
> pages: what details can be left out without harm-
> ing the narrative? Or what little sidelight should
> be added to clarify the situation being described?
>
> Here's a dilemma upon the horns of which I am
> currently stuck:
REALLY, Roosso?
"Here's a dilemma upon the horns of which I am currently stuck:" ! !
What sheer pomposity!! The above sentence is a blatant example of the sort of pedantic arrogance (or arrogant pedantry?) up with which Sir Winston Churchill once said he refused to put
...
IMHO, this is yet another clear indication that, not only should your "artistic license" be revoked, you should be put on probation for a least a year to preclude your further butchering of the English languidge!
- Sincerely,
Willie (Wm. Claude Johnson-Barr III, Esq.)
"
Not All Who Have Cell-Phones Do Twitter *
"
Not All Those Who Ponder Can Think . . . "
* Only TWITS Twitter!