In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:27:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:

either using sub-par sources or working in an awkward and artificial manner that bears little to no resemblance to normal scholarly practice in the field.>>

---------------------- In a way perhaps. I'd really like an example :) I'm SURE you have an example. Usually people only come here *after* they've encountered some specific problem like "Tori Amos", but they don't want to admit they've been slumming.

It's true. For some articles we have to work in a stilted manner ESP if those articles are heavily edited and monitored. But that doesn't have to make our work worse. In fact I think it can make it better by *forcing* editors to really dig in and find those sources, instead of relying on meandering language, judgment, memory and hyperbole ;)

Will Johnson

**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)