Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
On 18 Mar 99, Jim Brick wrote, at least in part:
> My entire premise is that technical based
> periodicals, that are revered as a source of technical information, should
> have a "primary" goal if insuring that the information presented is indeed
> true and accurate. There are no excuses. None.
That's fine, Jim, IF absolute accuracy can be absolutely certain.
There are times when the author will be speaking with the best
intentions and truly believes, that he is citing accurate facts.
These 'facts', however, can be argued even by a panel of
referees. Any concensus achieved will still be open to doubt.
My previous example of the AJN, though not a perfect analogy,
illustrates that, at times, new ground is being broken with little
possibility of knowledgable refereeing.
The reader with doubts about factual material presented in an
article has the right, nearly the duty, to write a challenging
article, or, at least a letter to the editor. Obviously, the editor
may or may not publish these rebuttals, but, just as obviously,
there is no such thing as a perfect editor. A good editor is one
that publishes *my* rebuttals. :-)
- --
Roger
mailto:roger@beamon.org
Blessed are those who can give without remembering
and take without forgetting.
-- Melvin Schleeds