Well said, in every respect, Tom. 73, Jim K9YC
On 8/3/2012 10:07 AM, Tom W8JI wrote: > I don't think any anyone with an experimentation (Edisonian), engineering, > or science background would assume a few errors (or even a few dozen errors) > automatically means we can't trust anything an author says, or assume value > of overall contributions are diminished from a few mistakes, or even several > mistakes. That's more what those who think in terms of everything being > either all correct or all wrong, do. That's for religion or politics, not > science. > > We should be able to freely discuss and correct errors in a nice > non-personal way, and not assume pointing out an error is the same as > insulting someone's mother, sister, character, or value. > > Books and publications without proper technical review process and error > correction are the real problem, not the overall value of the overall > contribution. > > The ARRL Handbooks have very few mistakes because they have a good review > process. Not because of any difference in author quality. The review process > is key. _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
