Ian Goddard wrote:
> > The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
> > is to yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
>
> <snip>
>
> > You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
> > County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
> > census burnt in an office building in DC.
> >
> > Cheryl Singhals
>
> And why was 90+% of the 1890 census lost in a single office building
> fire?
Because it was the original and it was in use.
> Because it was the *only* central depository. Had there been copies
> in a second repository elsewhere the loss would have been 0%.
Well, no, the original would still be burnt, but you'd have an
alleged duplicate in some other repository. And, since the
1850-60-70 were triplicated, it's easy to see that 3 copies made
pre-Xerox-machine aren't necessarily duplicates of one another. A
Copy that isn't a Copy isn't significantly better than no copy.
Cheryl (wondering when they banned books like Red Book and
Handy Book)
singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
