Qoute #2

The average reader is not equipped to detect many kinds of document falsification, and a lot of text is still accepted on trust.

Without question or thought we enthusiastically ask a fellow book lover or reader, did you read the latest book by this writer, or did you read the newspaper article by the journalist? A reply of yes may follow that question with a vivid insight into how much the article or book was enjoyed. History has taught us that journalists who have won awards for their stories have made them up, authors who have wrote resounding books have been charged and proven to have used plagarism. Computer technology has allowed the honest, true, irrascible, and dastardly the same acess to vie for your attention. Without so much as any background information we delve into searching websites and take what is said as gospel without meeting the "anointed" ones who give us the information we request. With websites as Wickipedia bordering on hyperbolic in definitions and explanations of materials we must research with care. If we haven't learned from "Craig's List", we will ever be sojourned to idiocy. Print sources are more verifiable and are usually not written by a novice who goes online to sound important, and probably has true knowledge of the subject that is being talked about. Online authenticity is like shooting an arrow in the air and hoping it stays there until you ask it to come down. Wishful thinking aside, its a matter of you as an individual trusting yourself with the article you choose whether it is written text or computer.