Have finally received the latest PGI . . . and have a couple of comments.
As some of you have likely noticed I do, on occasion, have fairly strong opinions--and am also a master of understatement. Sadly for Ant Jones, PGI's insufferab--I mean, long-suffering editor, the same holds true in private communications as well. Usually the brunt of my ire I'd like to offer my thanks to Ant for not royally screwing up all my hard work this month. Oh, he's taken the editorial ax to my stuff but he's done a solid job of pruning this time instead of the usual butcher's mayhem. The View and the Bus article retain their intended spirit, if not all their original content and I'm humbly grateful. Mr. Jones' typical operating principle is y'all prefer a few extra square centimeters of photograph instead. Probably true.
Or else--you're thinking--- he could deem some of the content unnecessary. I thought of that too and discounted it immediately.
Ah well, seemed only fair to give him a public due as he suffers frequent private assaults.
Now on to the nasty bit. And perhaps it's just me but it seems PGI has been expanding the envelope of late--last 3 to 6 months?--in terms of language allowed in the mag and the, shall we say, less than subtle sexual nature of some of the humorous bits. While I realize it's fairly routine for many of us, I for one would consider limiting my kid's access to the mag if he was, say, 12 or thereabouts. It's very possible I'm just out of step or the onset of Alzheimer's, what?, is making me forgetful and it's really nothing new or, if it is, it really isn't a problem.
So, where should the line be drawn or should there even be a line?
As my sig says it's my opinion alone that perhaps PGI has gone too far and I'm simply curious what the rest of you think.
As some of you have likely noticed I do, on occasion, have fairly strong opinions--and am also a master of understatement. Sadly for Ant Jones, PGI's insufferab--I mean, long-suffering editor, the same holds true in private communications as well. Usually the brunt of my ire I'd like to offer my thanks to Ant for not royally screwing up all my hard work this month. Oh, he's taken the editorial ax to my stuff but he's done a solid job of pruning this time instead of the usual butcher's mayhem. The View and the Bus article retain their intended spirit, if not all their original content and I'm humbly grateful. Mr. Jones' typical operating principle is y'all prefer a few extra square centimeters of photograph instead. Probably true.
Or else--you're thinking--- he could deem some of the content unnecessary. I thought of that too and discounted it immediately.
Ah well, seemed only fair to give him a public due as he suffers frequent private assaults.
Now on to the nasty bit. And perhaps it's just me but it seems PGI has been expanding the envelope of late--last 3 to 6 months?--in terms of language allowed in the mag and the, shall we say, less than subtle sexual nature of some of the humorous bits. While I realize it's fairly routine for many of us, I for one would consider limiting my kid's access to the mag if he was, say, 12 or thereabouts. It's very possible I'm just out of step or the onset of Alzheimer's, what?, is making me forgetful and it's really nothing new or, if it is, it really isn't a problem.
So, where should the line be drawn or should there even be a line?
As my sig says it's my opinion alone that perhaps PGI has gone too far and I'm simply curious what the rest of you think.
