[AUUG-Talk]: Personal Contributions - AUUG's Value Add

[David Newall]

Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, David J N Begley wrote:
>   
>> DavidN clearly wrote that his objection was to your use of the phrase, 
>> "unsubstantiated source" - not to an academic process per se:
>>
>>   "Your phrase 'unsubstantiated source' (to which I take objection)..."
>>     
>
> Yes, and I'm still awaiting the reasoning for his alleged objection.
>   

You are?  I explained it, succinctly, at the time, and amplified myself 
the next.  You described sources as 'unsubstantiated' on the one hand, 
for me, yet 'peer-reviewed' on the other, for you.  Aside from the 
obvious inconsistency, the negative connotation attached to me is as 
objectionable as the superior one attaching to you.  Surely you can see 
how this sounds a little insulting?

> Now we get to the nub of the matter; does anyone bother cross-checking web 
> sources such as Google and Wikipedia etc?  Or does one blindly believe 
> them?
>   

Well of course people do.  What an absurd idea, that one might blindly 
and consistently believe everything on the web, or anywhere for that 
matter; no more would one blindly believe an article in a peer-reviewed 
journal, but would consider a range of findings from a range of sources.