That’s a loaded question. (Sorry, but I just couldn’t resist the pun.)
That’s a question I ask every time I read yet another ridiculous article. Convoluted (or completely absent) logic, factual errors, reliance on outdated or inappropriately applied data are all issues with far too many writers. The “old days” weren’t much better, either; I can find articles from some of the past luminaries in the gunwriting game which aren’t exactly paragons of research or fact. They were, however, far more entertaining and generally better written.
Greg Ellifritz, however, answered the question better than I ever could (or perhaps would.) That’s mainly because he’s less reticent about calling a spade a spade than I am. Go read his article about an article he read – and what he thought of it (and its author.)
My reaction to the article was much like his. Now don’t get me wrong; this is not to say that I’m always right (nor that Ellifritz is either.) What I hope, with every article or book, is that I’ve done my research properly, that I’ve analyzed my own experiences from as neutral a perspective as possible, and that I’m open to the possibility that I may not know everything. The author of the article Ellifritz dissects appears to have done none of that, and thus perpetuates hoary myths that should have been put down years ago.
Go read his article; it’s worth your time.
-=[ Grant ]=-