| ▲ | freejazz a day ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>So that's per citation? Then two minutes each is a waste of time for basic checking. No, it's not two minutes per citation. >This accusation is not supported by what they said. It is. >Again a lot of that comment is about getting a document from someone else and quickly checking validity. You have no idea what you're talking about. Have a nice time going off. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> No, it's not two minutes per citation. Please clarify the statement you made. You said two minutes. What specifically are you saying takes two minutes? You said it's "not per citation" but you also said that it's "Seeing if "hyperlink" returns a case the citation." which sounds like a description of a per-citation action. And then you described it as "You type it in" which would mean: A) it's not a link B) something to automate that would be useful and C) typing in every citation in an entire document sounds like it would take longer than two minutes. > It is. Them using the phrase "some relevant database" doesn't mean they're unaware those things exist! What they were uncertain about is the minutiae of how they're accessed. You're misinterpreting them just to insult them. > You have no idea what you're talking about. Have a nice time going off. I'm talking about what their comment means. You are not an authority on that. Especially when they already made a followup comment saying you interpreted them wrong. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||