Topband: THE ITINERANT 160 METER ANTENNA PROJECT

[Jim Brown]

Well said, in every respect, Tom.

73, Jim K9YC

On 8/3/2012 10:07 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> 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.