jf noonan wrote:
> This is a most unfortunate quote. Whether or not one's brother
> died at a particular time and place is not really open to
> discussion. These are objective facts of the most basic kind
> and are not open for interpretation based on who is doing the
> reporting. I agree that Stoll has his own problems and his own
> unpleasant agenda. That does not change the fact that Menchu is
> a less than
The complication is that *no one* has ever written a reasonably complicated book (or even article) involving any large amount of factual material without making fairly numerous factual errors. So we can't depend on being always correct in our facts for the efficacy of our work. (It goes without saying that we attempt to be as accurate as possible -- though "possible" includes a measure of how much effort a given task is worth. Some things are worth doing -- but *only* if they are worth doing badly. Doing them well represents a misuse of human energy and time.)
I have no "solution" to offer here -- just a *fact* (of frequent factual error by everyone) to be taken into account.
Carrol