Re: 1Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:34:57 +0000, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:26:41 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:29:37 +0000, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:22:22 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:34:16 +0000, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ----

According to Amazon "Publisher: McFarland & Company (December 10,
2004)". It is likely that McNeill had not even heard of the discovery
of the accounts at that date.

You mean he hadn't bothered to do his research, just relied on Means or
something like that. Do you think that is excusable? In 2004 the
invoices had been known about for at least 6 years, and he could very
simply have contacted Warwickshire to find out if there was any new
information about the Chesterton windmill.

I think it is more likely than that he had deliberately suppressed his
knowledge of the finding of the accounts. I do know that the first I
heard of the finding of the accounts was when you mentioned it in this
news group some years ago. This in spite of the fact that I had been
researching and discussing the Chesterton windmill for several years.
As I recall, it was new news to you at that time also.

But that was 1998. My question was, is that excusable? All it would have
taken was a phone call or letter to check to see if there was any new
information. But new information is presumably exactly what he didn't
want.

I think you are being unfair when you attribute to malice that which
can be attributed to mere sloppy work.

From what I've seen on Amazon the entire book seems to be a cut and
paste of what others have written in the past. Even if I had bought it
I certainly wouldn't regard it as an authoritative work.



Eric Stevens

Don't you think that sloppy (well, inexcusably bad actually) work includes
not bothering to check stuff when you are happy with what you have?

Yes, but it doesn't automatically extend to deliberate suppression of
the latest information, which was the point I was trying to make.



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Remote Control WS2003
    ... Al Jarvi (MS-MVP Windows Networking) ... Please post *ALL* questions and replies to the news group for the mutual ... > I'm basically needing a member of the accounts department to REMOTE ... but have access to the REMOTE CONTROL command? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely)
  • Re: 1Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower
    ... knowledge of the finding of the accounts. ... news group some years ago. ... researching and discussing the Chesterton windmill for several years. ... can be attributed to mere sloppy work. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: OE6 and XP
    ... Try posting this in an Outlook Express news group - this is not one of them. ... | I can't get the family's e-mail accounts to go to the right person. ... | With XP and the four user accounts the e-mails randomly go to whomever ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook)
  • Re: Unable to load an ActiveX control
    ... microsoft.public.windows.server.security news group, Arthur ... users then fail to load it under their accounts which are not admin ... Users group to install an ActiveX control. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.security)
  • Re: OUTLOOK EXPRESS BACKING UP
    ... Try posting this in an Outlook Express news group - this is not one of them. ... | On PC-A I had a client who has 6 email accounts in Outlook Express!!! ... and restore eveything onto PC-B. ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)
Quantcast