:::::::::::So your claim is that typographical errors are on a par with factual errors?  Which makes it a factual error in the second piece to say that Gorman didn't point out factual errors in the first piece when he did the functional equivalent by pointing out typographical errors?  Is this a general principle, do you think?  A source with misspellings is prima facie unreliable?  Also, do you have evidence for your characterization of O'Dwyer's as a "small newsletter" and all the other stuff you said?  It seems to me that it's quite a weighty publication in its field, given the number of citations of it in scholarly articles and monographs, an issue which you still haven't addressed.  Are not number and quality of citations standard ways to judge the quality of sources, rather than our own feelings about whether they should hire better copy-editors?  Finally and, I guess tangentially, I wonder why you see the instant article as a "hit piece," and why you think that's relevant to the first issue regarding reliability?  Suppose arguendo that it is a "hit piece."  That would seem to me to lend some weight to the second reliability issue, that is, that its existence weighs on the side of our dealing with a genuine controversy here.  After all, the existence of "hit pieces" is to smoke as controversy is to fire, ce vrai?—