It was originally reported as a "Hurricane jet fighter plane" or similar when in fact it does not have a jet engine but a 27 litre, 12 cylinder Rolls Royce Merlin engine and a propellor.I don't get the OP - what's the problem?
It was originally reported as a "Hurricane jet fighter plane" or similar when in fact it does not have a jet engine but a 27 litre, 12 cylinder Rolls Royce Merlin engine and a propellor.
So you don't care. Very few things on here actually matter. You asked.and shrugs shoulders........it doesn't matter
It matters because journalists who are so lazy and ignorant they can’t even get basic facts right in a short headline, shouldn’t be in the profession. You work in academia, I doubt you’d tolerate a paper, or a thesis with a title containing a glaring, lazy error.and shrugs shoulders........it doesn't matter
It matters because journalists who are so lazy and ignorant they can’t even get basic facts right in a short headline, shouldn’t be in the profession. You work in academia, I doubt you’d tolerate a paper, or a thesis with a title containing a glaring, lazy error.
and shrugs shoulders........it doesn't matter
If it needs correction before you’d accept it, it’s not tolerable. It’s that simple. What would happen if the author declared it fit for publishing as/is and declined to correct it?depends on what you mean by tolerate! No we'd send it back for corrections, but consider it to be pretty minor affair
Under Milk Wood would still be awaiting publicationIf it needs correction before you’d accept it, it’s not tolerable. It’s that simple. What would happen if the author declared it fit for publishing as/is and declined to correct it?
It's lazy journalism. Such things matter.depends on what you mean by tolerate! No we'd send it back for corrections, but consider it to be pretty minor affair
It's lazy journalism. Such things matter.