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?