On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, jayjg wrote:
Jay, I
don't agree with everything Daniel and Steve have written
about this, but I also find your reply quite problematic. Surely
the library catalogue is the most reliable and verifiable source
for what is in the library.
It's the most reliable source we have for what is
in the library at
that time. However, we, as searchers of that catalog, are neither a
reliable or verifiable source for what is in the catalog.
You could apply the same argument to books. "We, as searchers of a book, are
neither a reliable or verifiable source for what is in the book".
Moreover, if that particular fact is notable or
interesting, it is most likely to have already been stated in a book
review of some sort.
Oh, come on now. You're just saying that as a boilerplate response without
thinking about whether it actually makes sense. Why is being notable enough
to be in a book review the same thing as being notable enough for a completely
different purpose?