Title: This "unedited" version needs editing.
Product review: This version of the Starr Report appears to have been printed directly from a download from the Internet. The problems are apparent, especially in the footnotes. For example, at one point an underline for "id." causes ALL of the following footnotes in that section to be underlined. Also, the footnote numbering does not agree with the other two versions of the Starr Report, which are consistent with each other. These problems were no doubt due to the speed of publication, but they are distracting. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that this is the most legible of the three versions of the Report, with large print and a clean font.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
