From: Smithhemb at aol.com <Smithhemb>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 19:47:36 EST

In a message dated 1/2/2003 7:28:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Faxie7 at aol.com writes:



Though, as the controversy over Arming America demonstrates, extensive footnotes to primary sources are no guarantee of the scholarly integrity of the work. (Nor, for that matter, is peer-review!) OTOH, it's probably true that only books that make politically controversial claims will generate the kind of energy needed to wade through such scholarly thickets and discover the inaccuracies and misrepresentations they contain.

And, for what it's worth, truth is a defense to libel. If an author is telling the truth and can document his/her sources, it makes no difference whether such documentation is provided in the book or in a letter responding to lawyers.

So, once again, I come down on the side of thinking that form (notes) is no guarantee of substance (accuracy).

Sue Hemberger
Received on Thu 02 Jan 2003 06:47:36 PM CST