<<In a message dated 1/8/2009 7:06:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:

I mean, I'm not saying secondary sources are useless. I'm just saying, "knowledge published in reliable secondary sources" and "encyclopedia" are not equivalent. That's a statement on a line-by-line, fact-by-fact scale.>>

Okay but you're talking past me, because I never espoused this position either. In fact quite the opposite. If I had I would have *no room whatsoever* for primary sources right? No sense in quoting a primary source if the knowledge had already been published in a secondary source. I'm sure you can see this.

Will Johnson

**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)