Attitude

I edited an article entitled, "English Bulletin Boards for the Classroom." The writer completely disregarded the rules about how to compose the text descriptions and URLs for the "References" and "Resources" sections which provide links for readers who want additional information.

I sent the article back to the writer to address the aforementioned issues.

The writer resubmitted the article without fixing anything and included this comment: "I taught 7th and 8th grade English for 9 years."

My comment to the writer in my rejection of the article, based on not responding to my request nor following the style guidelines, was: "'I taught 7th and 8th grade English for 9 years' does not respond to my request that you review the guidelines regarding References and Resources. . . . Describing a Reference as 'More ideas' leaves something to be desired in terms of piquing the reader's interest, as does 'Even more ideas' for the Resource."

The shoe's on the other foot now, Teach.

Overheard at the Carets & Styx

A couple of days ago, I was at my favorite hangout, the devilishly fun café for editors, when I listened in on a conversation between two of my peers.

EDITOR 1: The writer I’m dealing with now is a real bitch. She’s insulting, patronizing, and never answers my queries.

EDITOR 2: You're preaching to the choir, honey. If we had a nickel, huh.

EDITOR 1: At the risk of sounding sexist, maybe she needs to get laid.

EDITOR 2: I need to get laid! But I digress. I'm making a note to myself on this. There has got to be a relationship between the sexual activity or inactivity of writers and how they relate to their editors.

EDITOR 1: Let's call Trish over at the Sosh Department to see if this has some research grant potential.