leave it in. David singhals wrote: > > I have received e-mail, rather aggressively worded IMO, asserting that I > made a mistake in one of my on-line indices. Some comments were made with > a very non-PC implication. > > I didn't take umbrage at his saying I have mistakes; I know I do. For one > thing there's a misspelt name. The fact he asserts is error, however, is > NOT one of mine. I answered that I will re-check the source; if the names > are in there, they stay, right or wrong. I further pointed out that his > comments were invalid (and told him why) without commenting on the > implication. > > Now, I have re-checked the source and the names ARE in the source, in the > place speficied on-line. However. The entry is incomplete and what is > written has been carefully lined thru (once) as has the note See Other > Book. The Other Book has the complete entry, underscored. I clearly decided > the first time thru that since they WERE there and since they WERE legible, > I should include them. > > I can strike-over the names in HTML, just as they were in the book, if I > have to, but I still feel that they were in the source, they should be in > the index. > > What say ye? > > Cheryl