<HTML>Although Graham [apparently] makes mention of his new position on the Vyse issue in the introduction, I submit that he could have gone farther and that he *probably* knows this would be expected of him by those with more scholarly standards.
Frankly, I question his sincerity when we writes "I believe this is a more effective way to correct a mistake I made in the past -- i.e. to leave it there, as part of the original argument, but to state clearly, prominently and publicly, up front, that I now believe it to be a mistake (rather than simply to erase the error from the original work as though it never happened in the first place)."
Yes, this might be a "more" effective way to correct a mistake, but it isn't enoght. An even better, rather obvious way would be to again redirect the readers' attention when they come upon the relevant passage, which presumably occurs long after the introduction. For example, in going on about Vyse, Graham could easily have inserted a bracketed two sentence paragraph that would have this effect, such as,
[For those of you who might have missed the relevant portion of the introduction, since writing the orignal version of this book, my view on the Vyse forgery issue has changed. Please refer to page xyz for clarification on my new position].
This easy-to-make insertion on a very important point would have the desired effect of leaving the original argument entact, but it would also, more "prominently and publickly" ensure that the majority of readers were not misguided. Not only that, but it would satisfy the critics who in this case seem to be calling for a standard of disclosure that is well known and understood.
Point Ma'at</HTML>
