<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Mimeo Variants: Who Gives a Fuck?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://realitystudio.org/bibliographic-bunker/fuck-you-press-archive/mimeo-variants-who-gives-a-fuck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://realitystudio.org</link>
	<description>A William S. Burroughs Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:38:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Will		</title>
		<link>https://realitystudio.org/bibliographic-bunker/fuck-you-press-archive/mimeo-variants-who-gives-a-fuck/comment-page-1/#comment-223863</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Will]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://realitystudio.org/?page_id=2384#comment-223863</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Possibly this will complicate matters, but would some clarity over the number of leaves per copy help unravel the order of the print run(s)? My lavender-cover copy has 23 leaves: [3], 19, [1]; OCLC seems to go along with this.

However one online seller lists this plus an unnumbered erratum leaf between pp. 18 and 19 (presumably stapled in) with the orange-yellow cover. This leaf could never have existed in my lavender-cover copy, as the stapling is in tact.

Does it seem more likely that the erratum leaf came in later in the run as, if the leaf had existed towards the start, why would it have been dropped? Is the erratum leaf common or not, and does it appear in any lavender-cover copies?

Possible reasons against this would be shortage of paper (what colour is the erratum leaf?) and if the errata on the other pages were corrected, making the leaf irrelevant. Can anyone help with these?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Possibly this will complicate matters, but would some clarity over the number of leaves per copy help unravel the order of the print run(s)? My lavender-cover copy has 23 leaves: [3], 19, [1]; OCLC seems to go along with this.</p>
<p>However one online seller lists this plus an unnumbered erratum leaf between pp. 18 and 19 (presumably stapled in) with the orange-yellow cover. This leaf could never have existed in my lavender-cover copy, as the stapling is in tact.</p>
<p>Does it seem more likely that the erratum leaf came in later in the run as, if the leaf had existed towards the start, why would it have been dropped? Is the erratum leaf common or not, and does it appear in any lavender-cover copies?</p>
<p>Possible reasons against this would be shortage of paper (what colour is the erratum leaf?) and if the errata on the other pages were corrected, making the leaf irrelevant. Can anyone help with these?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: realitystudio.org @ 2026-04-06 05:18:24 by W3 Total Cache
-->