🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9411042137.AA02740@caribou.advtech.uswest.com> Randall Sparks <randall@ADVTECH.USWEST.COM> writes:
>Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 14:37:11 MST
>From: Randall Sparks <randall@ADVTECH.USWEST.COM>
>Subject: record numbers

>> > 1. "True" compaction of an EndNote file changes the record numbers, renderin
>g
>> >    the library useless in updating papers referenced with the old library,
>>
>> Now we're on the subject of record numbers, can I again (I certainly can!)
>> bitch about them?  IMHO it is an absurd way of maintaining a database --
>> there really is no flexibility *at all*.  For instance, what I would like
>> to do is to share one big happy Endnote database between multiple users
>> ...
>>                Adrian

>Adrian is absolutly right, as are those who have preceeded him in asking
>Niles to fix this.  I've never expressed my opinion on this before, because
>I judge myself to be a somewhat unusual EndNote user in that I absolutely
>refuse to use record numbers in my citations (except for a few instances in
>which EndNote, unnecessarily, won't work without them).  Instead, my
>citations include first author, year, and the first several words of the
>title, e.g.  [Schwartz, 1982, Greehouse hypothesis].

Randall,

You're not alone; I do the same thing. My colleagues and I pass bibliographies 
back and forth all the time, and it would be counterproductive to use the 
EndNote reference numbers.

    John N
    jgn+@osu.edu