In article <4edlg7$9lt at news.wco.com>, Della Noche <dnoche at mail.wco.com> wrote:
>californ at netcom.com wrote:
>>=======================================================================
>>>>Publisher's Preface
>>(Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC, phone 202-546-5005 or 800-462-6420)
>snp
>>>>We anticipate that the prepublication controversy may be just a precursor of
>>what is to follow. In our tradition of presenting the public provocative
>>books, we are proud to be Peter Duesberg's publisher.
>>[end]
>>I hope this passage isn't a "precursor" of what is to follow. How can
>you trust anything written by someone who misuses words like this?
>Admittedly this is the "Publisher's Preface" and not the work of the
>author being published but still....
>I hope your posting of 6 identical messages isn't a "precursor" of
what may follow this post, but I guess I'll take my chances.
What is the problem with the use of "precursor", if that is indeed
your complaint? It means simply something that precedes another.
In this context, there was controversy before publication and they
expect controversy after publication. So how is it incorrect to
use the phrase they did, describing the pre-publication controversy
as a "precursor" to what may follow publication? Surely it doesn't
surprise you that there is controversy at all?
And if you find it useful to dismiss someone completely when they
misstate, in your opinion, one thing, tell me--how do you feel
about anything Bob Gallo says? Or David Baltimore? Does Duesberg
or his publisher have skeletons in the closet like these guys?
Todd Miller
