Sometimes librarians may not be blinded by technology, sometimes they
just like to use the Tom Sawyer approach (or, in the words of Bob
Berring: "Make someone else do the work for you.")
Fritz Snyder, Univ. of Montana Law Library.
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999,
Andy Grossman wrote:
>
> It's not just summer associates. It's the same story with the Calif.
> Law Review article I assisted with yesterday. Law librarians can be
> blinded to the obvious by technology, too. "Lateral thinking" isn't,
> or shouldn't be, all that revolutionary a discovery.
>
> I am still trying to resolve the question of when one must, or ought
> to, refer to the authoritative version of a norm -- usually the
> official gazette -- in drawing conclusions of what is the law. (1) is
> that a common-law bias? (2) what if the judges and ministries of a
> country do not themselves place much stock in the official gazette? (I
> can give examples where the sole reliable source for a law is the
> Ministry of Justice computer, or where revisions have been so frequent
> and extensive that the risk of error is great in using the OG. (I have
> found typos in the Larcier version of Belgian statutes. But do they
> matter if the orthographic error is obvious? How many times do lawyers
> insert "[sic]" into their quotes of opposing counsel submission mainly
> to score points and for no substantive purpose?)
>
> Andy Grossman
> Université catholique de Louvain
>
>
>
> --- Genie Tyburski <tyburski@virtualchase.com> wrote:
> > I really don't think this is the case. I don't
> > think he thought in
> > terms of cost -- just what's easy and fast to him.
> > It's part of why I
> > shared the story. It's getting harder and harder to
> > think like they do.
> > :-)
> >
> > Genie
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:50:07 PST