>
> It is impossible to know the basis for his errors in this case. But Bill's
> contributions to amateur radio were vast and valuable and greatly
> overshadow this one slip-up.
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.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|