TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-12 > 1166117000

From: "Linda Kuhn" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:23:20 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>


You're right. It all boils down to understanding the difference between (a)
paper output vs. computer input, (b) a source vs. a citation, and (c) a
published style book vs. a published style book translated for computer use
by a particular program. And although I may have inadvertently left the
impression I didn't understand these differences, I actually did. What had
confused me for a long time was *why* TMG made the interpretations they did
when creating the default Mills templates. Terry's reply cleared that up for

But I'm still left with the dilemma of what to split and what to lump and to
what degree to do either. I bet if every single person who subscribes to
this list replied with their own particular method, that every method would
be different from the next in at least some small way. That's personal
preference. And, fortunately, TMG allows for that.

Right now, I'm at the stage where I'm struggling to figure out what my own
personal preference is for input while maintaining consistent and accepted
output. Using your email example, I wonder: Is the Source the Correspondent
who wrote the email or is the Source the actual email itself? What added
value is there to me or to other researchers in having the actual, detailed
email reference appear both in a citation and in the Bibliography? These are
not tongue-in-cheek or rhetorical questions.

Right now, I feel like the proverbial horse that starves to death while
standing smack in the middle between two piles of hay - one being strewn
around on the ground, the other being in a nice neat lump - just because it
can't decide which pile is more appetizing. <LOL>

Yeah. I know. <g>


This thread: