Cheers - and seriously, all it is is honesty and making sure everything is transparent.
My recent post Edition 14

Postscript: read the comment below the article. http://sqmag.com/2014/04/30/edition-14-article-st...
My recent post Edition 14

SeandBookonaut

I don't understand why you were taken aback by my tone, as it was simply factual and straightforward. It seems to me that too often, as I inferred earlier, people thinking about what people think quite a bit - and don't always get it right. My only concern in my Point 2 was that people may believe that we made changes to the content of the articles in response to the debate. This concerned us as we didn't want to.

As opposed to blogs, such as yours, where the bloggist is the author in almost every case, magazines operate completely differently. The paradigm applied to us is no different in the electronic and print media - the author isn't necessarily the poster/typesetter. But you still can be forgiven for that assumption :)

I want to assure you that I, as publisher, took no major offence here, but I do believe that a reasonable standard of accuracy and clarity needs to be employed by those who focus on the actions and motivations of others in the public. We are human, however, and the beauty of blogs and ezines is that things can get fixed rapidly, where there's motivation.

cheers
Gerry
My recent post Edition 14

GNBraun - as an ezine
Great.
My recent post Edition 14

GNBraun - as an ezine, we are lucky to be able to make changes in-flight, as long as it is done honestly and transparently. If you want, by all means add something about TPP and fling it in our direction.
My recent post Edition 14

SeandBookonaut. Please get your facts straight. 1. Sophie Yorkston, the Editor in Chief, added the preface - which was in fact intended from the start, but was modified to address the concerns (and which I support, btw), 2. Your blog states in the first para '(which has since been amended)' - while technically correct, we added a preamble - we did nothing else. While not necessarily intended, that statement may give readers the impression we amended the Title, sub-titles, or the text of the articles - which we didn't.

I'm not going to add to this debate - our preamble simply states our intention, and we welcome debate and comment deriving from it. However, while much of the debate is centred on what people think other people are thinking and doing (and perceptions of course), at least get your facts right.