At 08:37 PM, Friday, 11/1/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> And there isn't even a proper bibliography, just some suggested "additional reading."

Define "proper bibliography." John, if you don't like the book, don't finish it.
But spare us your suffering.
A proper bibliography is a list of works cited, usually those documented with footnotes linking the claims made in the text to the authority upon which those claims are made. Even our RS/PH manuals use footnotes and a proper bibliography. A person doesn't have to be a heavy duty scholar to appreciate knowing where an author came up with an assertion. In the absence of such documentation, it seems like the author is just making it up out of his head. And since so much of this particular text is obviously speculation and conjecture, a few footnotes and a real bibliography would have increased the credibility of the work. Otherwise, it is just a long essay on "how I look at things."

Incidentally, a person doesn't have to be a scholar to appreciate a real bibliography. I'm not a scholar, and I appreciate them. In fact, I think that most bibliographies are more interesting than the works built upon them.

"The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth
part of the face." --Jack Handy
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to