On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary sources.
(am I right?)
-Matt