Bruce's copyright admonition seems to have made everyone gunshy about quoting any part of linked-to articles. The "fair use doctrine" allows excerpting -- including significant excerpts. It would be nice if we could all include, alongside our story links, a brief synopsis or perhaps a reference to the part the poster would like everyone to read; or maybe just a statement by the poster why s/he thinks it's interesting. Just a suggestion. NOTE: This is not really aimed at you, Jimmy, by the way. I mean, in this case, "Education Bill" as the subject, plus the link, might be good enough. But I'm just sayin', generally, for everyone else's future reference.
Oh, yeah... one more thing: It's also common courtesy to put "PDF" in parenthesis, as in (PDF), right next to the link to warn people that their behemoth Acrobat Reader is going to need to load, and that the downloaded PDF file may take forever to finally paint on the screen... ostensibly so they can avoid clicking on it altogether if they want to. This is not a big problem for users with modern, fast machines where the Acrobat Reader loads quickly; but not all fast machine owners are also using fast Internet connections. When the user has both an old, slow machine, and is connected via dial-up, PDF files can be miserable to endure. So, warning the reader by putting "(PDF)" next to (or as part of) the link lets slow machine and/or Internet connection owners opt out if they like. For more info, see this page.
ok, I just posted on another thread why I HATE Excelsior's web site. This thread made me think of another reason. One reason people author PDF's is because you can lock out certain features. If don't want it printed, you can actually disable printing. Here's something for all you Excelsior users. Go to their web site. Download a pdf that lists your degree requirements. Now try to copy those requirements and paste them into a text editor. Can you do it? NOPE!!! They have the copy feature disabled!! WHY??!! WHY??!! WHY would they do that???!!!
Gregg, It wasn't my intention to make people "gunshy" about posting news articles, and I thought I explained myself pretty well in the referenced thread. Perhaps I was wrong. I have no ownership or pecuniary interests whatsoever in this website. Whatever I do, good or bad, is totally voluntary. I just don't want any inaction, perceived or real, on my part, to result in a lawsuit against the owners of the board, whom I consider to be my friends.
