On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't
see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should
only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary
sources.
(am I right?)
-Matt