Getting it right second time

Although I made it clear in my article Scattershot innuendo and muck that I was indifferent to the outcome of the arguments on the merits in Da Silva Moore, that is no excuse for substituting the word “Plaintiffs” for “Defendants” in the heading of an article whose entire purpose was to draw attention to the way in which one party is getting all the airtime in the commentary on the case.

Perhaps I was subconsciously proving my own point.  Perhaps the most sensible conclusion is that 4.00am on a Saturday morning is not the best time to think up article headings.

I am not too bothered about being defensive on this, but if I were, I would observe that it has taken until today for a sharp-eyed reader to spot my error. The tenor of the article was clear enough.

Changing the titles of articles is a pain, because they go through into the page names, and correcting them fouls up the SEO and breaks third-party links. It seemed, nevertheless, the right thing to do on this occasion.

About Chris Dale

I have been an English solicitor since 1980. I run the e-Disclosure Information Project which collects and comments on information about electronic disclosure / eDiscovery and related subjects in the UK, the US, AsiaPac and elsewhere
This entry was posted in Litigation Support. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s