> On 22 avr, 18:19, Jumbo
cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Apr 22, 3:21 pm, "Dr.BarryWorthington"
abertay.ac.uk>
>> wrote:>
>>> On 20 Apr, 13:05, Jumbo
cupolagallery.com> wrote:>
>> pointing out
>>>> I'm addressing someone who prefixes their web-name "Dr.")
>
>>> And why not?
>
>> Well, I didn't say you "shouldn't" do it.
>
>>>> Some (better) encyclopedias can be used as more than
>>>> just starting points. If someone is writing a dissertation on, say, As
>>>> You Like It and wants some basic information on the bush-signs outside
>>>> early modern English wine-shops, and they go to a GOOD encyclopedia,
>>>> they might find enough in one stop for their purposes in that
>>>> instance.
>
>>> Yes, but a serious scholar in that field would surely go to Eric
>>> Partridge first.
>
>> A serious scholar might go to Partridge first, but if they didn't I
>> wouldn't decide they weren't a "serious" scholar. AFAIC, serious
>> scholars can work in all sorts of ways.
>
>>> People who research at that level will only cite
>>> encyclopaedias for a special reason (For example, in the past, I have
>>> cited the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia.)
>
>> Again, I wouldn't like to be quite so prescriptive. People who
>> research at "that level" might choose to cite an encyclopedia because
>> they looked there and found what they needed for their purposes. How
>> that procedure is judged should depend on the context.
>
>>>>It's harsh to call that lazy if it represents the checking
>
>>>> of a minor detail in a 15000 word essay.
>
>>> An essay or a dissertation?
>
>> AFAIA, in British English "essay" can be used as a synoynm for
>> "dissertation", especially when an author wishes to avoid repetition
>> and the reference is of local subsequentiality, absence of ambiguity
>> permitting.
>
>>> An undergraduate might get away with it,
>>> but a postgraduate ought to have a good reason...
>
>> "Good" reason? You mean, they used an encyclopedia and it provided
>> them with basic information adequate for their purposes?
>
>>>> If they went to Wikipedia,
>>>> given the way its compiled, they would have to do extra checking to
>>>> corroborate basic facts.
>
>>> Quite. That's because of idiots like the original poster.
>
>> Granted the OP is an idiot (on the abundant evidence of his/her posts
>> on various subjects), I woudn't agree that all would-be saboteurs and
>> tamperers of/with things like Wikipedia are idiots. They too may have
>> their "special" reasons.
>
> you twirps, there are no facts for there is nothing but splendour.
The artificial sweetener?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
