Oh -- is that what it was about? When I heard you were in the Guardian I rather hoped it was under the headline 'we were completely wrong about Narnia and we're sorry'.
My first thought was -good luck to the readers trying to find the article in question (If anyone has wandered in here and is wondering, its the one about the quadruped. Yes, really.)
Seems like they might not have given you enough credit there. The article seems to borrow from you a bit more than just the fire code incident.
I hope you won't forget your roots now that you're a big star, Andrew.
hey, if you're an A-list blogger now, can we come with you?This would appear to be part of teh Guardian's increasing habit of using blogs as research sources. I'm not entirely convinced this is a good thing...Of course, that's just because they never use me. ;)
Ah, the good old distinction between "public activities funded and provided by the state" vs. "private activities organised by individuals in their personal capacity." A good and useful distinction, true... but isn't it a bit, you know, neo-liberal for the Grauniad?
Here's where it all goes down hill and the unspoilt undiscovered pleasures of Andrew's blog is spoilt by hoardes of blogging tourists. Watch as Andrew erects the blogging equivalent of MacDonalds and Starbucks to cater for them
I think Charles has a point... if you want to be a columnist for the Guardian, I suggest you send in an application stating something to the tune of "You pretty much plagiarised from me anyway, so can I have the job?"Besides, then you'd get to tell everyone the truth about Narnia.And besides, then I might actually read the Guardian.
Post a Comment
Don't like what Andrew is writing about?
Then he will write about what you think he should write about, for only £50 per 1,000 words.