Correction

A few weeks ago I had a posting on bloggers testifying in DC. There were some comments to the posting and I replied to them. In one of those comment replies I made this statement:

The rat**** diary recently became the ratbang diary
because some aggregators would not include it under
the old name.

It was based on something in the ratbang diary, announcing the name change (and please note that the previous name did not actually include four asterisks -- use your imagination and I'm sure you'll figure it out):

Because there are prissy twits out there, not to
mention mainstream rags, which would never read or
reference a blog called Rat****.

Recently the writer of that blog contacted me to let me know that I had misread her work:

You have made an inference that is not true. No one
has ever not included my blog anywhere because of the
old name Rat****. It seemed to me that this might
happen sometime, however. That is, if my blog became
popular enough to be noticed in the larger world. It
was a preemptive measure on my part. And I think, a
wise one.

But I would like to correct the impression you may
have that I felt pressured by negative comments or
people who were offended. I didn't feel that kind of
pressure at all. I am aware, though, that acceptance
in the Blogosphere does not mean acceptance in the
mainstream media. Therefore I took a prudent step.

Looking at what I originally read I can see that I did, indeed, make an assumption, and I stand corrected.