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

[David J N Begley]

Quoting Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org>:

> 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 (needlessly) deliberately arguing at cross purposes to try and  
rescue your originally insulting post - the fact remains that you  
asked about the (academic/rigorous) "process" whilst DavidN's original  
objection was to your description of the quality of the "source" (not  
the process by which one ultimately determines an answer, regardless  
of source).

All this, simply because you object to finding accurate/quality  
answers on the Web - perhaps you have just been unlucky?

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

Anyone?  Yes.  (Google hardly counts as a single "source", it is a  
means to finding a "source" - like an index or card catalogue.)

> Or does one blindly believe them?

Some do - then again, some people blindly believe a single book or  
journal, too (even if said book or journal later proves to be entirely  
inaccurate).

> Nonsense; if said information is available via the web then there is (and
> has been, and always will be) the opportunity to "correct" it.  The
> mailing lists that I have personally archived, however, will be
> impregnable.

Yes - as a reply to what I wrote this paragraph _is_ nonsense  
(regardless how correct it may be as a free-standing statement of fact).

>> Pot.call( &Kettle, "black" );
>
> I'm afraid you're going to have to speak English if you wish to make a
> point, otherwise I'll assume that you have conceded.

You know very well what point was made - you also know very well the  
vehicle through which that point was made.

As for "conceding", this was never about convincing you that the Web  
is better than books/journals - you are perfectly free to place  
whatever value you choose on information from any source;  the purpose  
was merely to identify (not argue, as these are mere statements of  
fact) that your original post to DavidN was both incorrect (ie., it is  
possible to find correct/useful information on the Web) and  
unnecessarily insulting.

Rod Speed is alive and well...