Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.jokes,net.followup
Subject: Re: (sic)
Message-ID: <1590@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Jun-83 11:20:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1590
Posted: Wed Jun 15 11:20:26 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jun-83 12:13:23 EDT
References: gatech.213, <1108@foxvax1.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 15


Phil M. makes the point that the usage of "sic" is to show that the
existance of an error in spelling, grammar, or logic is in the
quote referred to, not added by typographical or trascription error.
He's right, but my experience has been that "sic" has been used mostly
to make the reader aware that there is an error, or, in some cases,
that the editor wants to think that the author has erred.
I can think of one big city newspaper that regularly emphasizes errors
in spelling, etc, in those letters to the editor that it does NOT
agree with. 
Does anyone else recall this sort of biasing? (I will only say that
I live in the NY area.)  

Have (for a change from the usual disaster)  a nearly acceptable day.