Talk:Lao Tzu Library book list 1992-11-01 (source document): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "About: "As we can assume that the Lao Tzu Library tried to be complete, and the list even states the number of copies that the Library owns, then if a title is not on this lis...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
About: "As we can assume that the Lao Tzu Library tried to be complete, and the list even states the number of copies that the Library owns, then if a title is not on this list, we can assume that it was not published" ... It is a reasonable assumption that they ''tried'' to be complete, but whether they succeeded is a further assumption that may not be warranted. Certainly about some editions they are not complete, though it is possible that they are complete regarding whether a book was ever published in ''some'' form. | About: | ||
::"As we can assume that the Lao Tzu Library tried to be complete, and the list even states the number of copies that the Library owns, then if a title is not on this list, we can assume that it was not published" ... | |||
It is a reasonable assumption that they ''tried'' to be complete, but whether they succeeded is a further assumption that may not be warranted. Certainly about some editions they are not complete, though it is possible that they are complete regarding whether a book was ever published in ''some'' form. | |||
Thus, the comments that have been made re such "books" as ''[[The Agony and Ecstasy]]'' are entirely appropriate: "I wonder if this title has been published. It is not mentioned in the Lao Tzu Library Book List, nor on the CD-ROM. It is mentioned in the Osho Source Book, but with this Wiki as source". These comments are thorough about the lack of evidence of existence but still "wondering". | Thus, the comments that have been made re such "books" as ''[[The Agony and Ecstasy]]'' are entirely appropriate: "I wonder if this title has been published. It is not mentioned in the Lao Tzu Library Book List, nor on the CD-ROM. It is mentioned in the Osho Source Book, but with this Wiki as source". These comments are thorough about the lack of evidence of existence but still "wondering". | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
But for ''editions'', there is at least one omission which seems certifiably to have existed, and that is the JJK edition of | But for ''editions'', there is at least one omission which seems certifiably to have existed, and that is the JJK edition of | ||
''[[The Beginning of the Beginning]]''. Likely there are others. So maybe the comment should be changed to reflect that. -- doofus-9 21:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) | ''[[The Beginning of the Beginning]]''. Likely there are others. So maybe the comment should be changed to reflect that. -- doofus-9 21:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
---- | |||
Yes I agree. Have changed the comment. --[[User:Sugit|Sugit]] ([[User talk:Sugit|talk]]) 05:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
Revision as of 05:49, 18 May 2016
About:
- "As we can assume that the Lao Tzu Library tried to be complete, and the list even states the number of copies that the Library owns, then if a title is not on this list, we can assume that it was not published" ...
It is a reasonable assumption that they tried to be complete, but whether they succeeded is a further assumption that may not be warranted. Certainly about some editions they are not complete, though it is possible that they are complete regarding whether a book was ever published in some form.
Thus, the comments that have been made re such "books" as The Agony and Ecstasy are entirely appropriate: "I wonder if this title has been published. It is not mentioned in the Lao Tzu Library Book List, nor on the CD-ROM. It is mentioned in the Osho Source Book, but with this Wiki as source". These comments are thorough about the lack of evidence of existence but still "wondering".
But for editions, there is at least one omission which seems certifiably to have existed, and that is the JJK edition of The Beginning of the Beginning. Likely there are others. So maybe the comment should be changed to reflect that. -- doofus-9 21:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Have changed the comment. --Sugit (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
