[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

A thought experiment (and my 7th e-mail today...): Imagine the mysterious
lector was simply an ***hole and malevolently and deliberately, not
inadvertently, inserted the h, to give the authors some trouble (hwarr,
hwarr, hwaarrrr... B-D ). This would not be "an inadvertent error" as
mentioned in ICZN Article 24.3.3. Would this mean the h would be correct? I
really hope not.

(I better stress once more, explicitely, that I really don't think this is
what the lector/editor/... really did. :-) )