|
Well, I'm also sorry that you took offense. As you know, I've pointed out errors in previous postings, which you've used to make textual corrections. In this case, I thought it would be easier to simply post an alternate version. I took especial pains to note that this was not a criticism of your effort. You responded with sarcasm: "I think that you will find that this is a literary technique called irony." If you can't stand a little humor in reply, then perhaps it would be best not to start such a fruitless argument.
I still see the inversion as senseless, out of character, and crucially, not commented upon in the response -- ie, an obvious error. You're free, as a publisher, to correct or not to correct, as you choose. You're also free (which I gather is what you DO do) to publish these works without bothering to read them, so as to form an opinion about their textual correctness prior to publishing them. You'll pardon me if I choose actually to read them, and to advance each publication as my best understanding of the intent of the author.
|