>>>>>Along these lines, there were a few grammatical glitches in your Code Magazine article. Nothing major, just little stuff, and nothing that really detracted from the excellence of the article. Here is one of my wacky ideas -- please pass along to them my willingness to text edit articles pro bono.
>>>>>
>>>>>CoDe has a very good copy editor - and I pay much closer attention to articles than I do to what I type online (in terms of grammar), but it's always possible that something got missed. If you want to forward it to me (or post it here, won't bother me)
>>>>
>>>>Just a couple from the beginning --
>>>>
>>>>1. Near the end of first paragraph -- "By the end, you'll see why businesses and other organizations see the value of OLAP databases." This is a minor quibble but one word, organizations, does it. Businesses are organizations.
>>>>
>>>>2. Start of second paragraph -- "One of my primary objectives in this article is to 'demystify' SSAS and OLAP technology." The quotes around demystify are unneeded. The word speaks for itself.
>>>>
>>>>You may consider these comments anal and maybe they are. But I submit that any good copy editor is anal by nature ;-) I don't expect my pro bono offer to go anywhere. It was genuine, though. If you want to do so privately in email before submitting your future articles or books officially, that's fine. Our disagreements over other matters are out of play. I beat the crap out of myself sometimes but this is one thing I do well.
>>>
>>>I would consider the first one anal but probably not in the manner you intend. <g> "businesses and *other* organizations" is quite correct just as "Senators and *other* politicians" would be correct, whereas "Senators and politicians" would qualify for your criticism.
>>
>>You missed my point, which was that the quote marks were unneeded.
>>
>>We don't need to belabor it. I don't have enough friends to toss them into the fire over semantics.
>
>Didn't miss it at all. It was you second point. I addressed the first.
>
>If you want to hold yourself up as an ace copy editor (your own brand of arrogance) , you are vulnerable to the same criticism and probably should be sure you're right.
>
>"We don't need to belabor it" shows up in a lot of your posts when somebody calls you on something that is a matter of fact. Some people find that annoying ( and some are just bored enough tonight to mention it).

A lot? To clarify, what I mean when I say that is I don't want to get into an extended argument when the points of both parties are already clear.

Yrs in annoyance,

Mike