On 19/12/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/18/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Perhaps there is another useful way to look at
it: consider
> the legal database to be "the" source, rather than a
> collection of sources. Can I say something like "Legal
> opinions found in the LawIsUs database uniformly favor Y"?
> (The wording may need tweaking.)
The problem is that material we use as sources must be
available to
the general public, and it's not clear that we can expect the public
to have access to a legal database.
Er, what on earth? No, rubbish. It's the source, it's checkable.
Also, we have to depend on you
having conducted the search correctly, which you may not have done if
you have no legal education; and we have to depend on you correctly
describing the opinion that you say is uniformly favored, which you
may also not have done.
That's a separate issue.
- d.