Archive for the ‘Retractions’ Tag

A Fast Correction — YS & YS Skin

I want to make a fast correction before I go in to work this morning.  In the OFPC Update 3 article, I said that I wasn’t happy with the YS & YS skin I had on in there, because of the shine on my face.  I just couldn’t seem to dim down the gleam anything I did.  Well, since then, I’ve tried the Akeruka stock skins as well, and I still seem to be awful shiny under high-quality lighting setups with WindLight and shadows engaged.  It may be the shadows and materials are what’s creating the situation.  The strange thing is that Jem was using the same settings, and her face didn’t shine like that.  We’ll need to experiment some — and I can foresee a lot of lindens going to skin people, or at least a lot of questions.  In any case, I want this on the record, along with an apology to YS & YS for my mistake.  I’ll be leaving this piece up for about two weeks, and I’ll go correct the referencing article right now.

signature 3

Posted February 28, 2017 by Harper Ganesvoort in Meta, Personal, Retractions

Tagged with , ,

A Retraction re: Wherefore Art Thou, Eric?

One thing you get used to when dealing with blogs:  the newest stories are always at the top of the page.  You know this; you expect this.  If you want your fish fresh, look at the top of the page.

That’s what I was expecting when I went to Reuters’ Second Life page.  And I suspected that they weren’t writing about anything new because the top story was stuck on September 12 for so long.  It still is.  But running down “below the fold,” so to speak, to the headlines-only list, I found several stories I was not aware of; and, bringing them up to read, found that they were written on the 23rd and 25th.  For some reason, these stories never pushed down the three leads that have been there for so long.

I was wondering if Eric and Adam Reuters have been at work, or if their stories were being killed by an editor.  I now know, and I apologize for my earlier article.  Sometimes the simplest things evade scrutiny, and it surely did this time.  I prefer to write this retraction instead of killing the other article; the maxim of the Web prevails:  “Once on the Net, always on the Net.”  So it is better to admit the mistake and apologize for it than to pretend it never happened, when anyone who’s saved or printed a copy of the story knows that it did.  Again, my apologies to both Eric and Adam.

%d bloggers like this: