2 Nov 1987

[ken garner]

It is quite possible I am experiencing the normal aging process, but that was not why the 
MDC mistake in layout crept into the latter book. It might shock some members of the list, 
but I do not have a personal memory in my brain of every single peel session. The 
formatting error with the MDC occurred when I converted my completely new data 
spreadsheets to word, I missed MDC needing a new para then, spotted it on the proof, 
but, as I said, it was too late to change. IN short, while there were many errors and 
omissions in IST that I corrected for TPS, it's true there were a (gratifyingly) smaller 
number of entirely new errors in sessions from 67-92 in TPS, created incidentally, 
inevitably, as part of the creation of  a new database from editing the old one and adding 
in about 1400 new ones from 92 onwards. These things simply happen with data. The first 
thing the publisher Mathew told me, when I said what I was determined to do, was "There 
will be mistakes in it, whatever you do". At least MDC are in there, even if they are hard to 
spot! This is a risky thing to say, but it's now 16 months since publication, and although 
my master copy is covered in handwritten tiny amendments of titles, names, notes of 
omitted titles or even misattribution (the Michael / Roger Chapman conflation, doh!), I 
don't think anyone has bought to my attention an entire session that I have missed out 
completely. Although there is one in there that should not be!

k

--- In peel@yahoogroups.com, "Alasdair Macdonald" <wewalkforonereason@...> wrote:
>
> Ken -
> 
> You seem to have forgotten that you have authored more than one book.
> To be clear, the error in question is within "The Peel Sessions",
> which was published a couple of years ago, but not in "In Session
> Tonight", which was 1,000 years ago.
> 
> Is it Alzheimers, or just the normal aging process?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 2009/1/18 ken garner <ken_garner@...>:
> >
> > thanks, forgotten that dedication, ...and how spooky that it should be MDC's session 
that
> > is cursed with the clunkiest layout error in my book. Read the David McWilliams entry 
very
> > closely and i think you will see what happened in the formatting conversion. I did 
actually
> > spot this before the deadline I'd been given for going to press, and inform publisher, 
but
> > then it transpired - to our surprise - that we were not ging to get a further final page
> > correction stage given delivery schedules. Sorry MDC. I shall promise to feel guilty 
while
> > listening to this show again....
>