On a further note, I think it was very irresponsible of Tompkins to duck out after she realised that she couldn't find the answer to her question. She used the argument that truth is elusive and perspectival (which it is) to make up for her own lack of conclusions. She could have taken the essay a bit further and at least told us her set opinion on the subject (she sort of beats around the bush, hinting at what she thinks, but doesn't say it) or researched further into the seemingly more credible sources, but she just let it drop with the statment that truth is in the eye of the beholder.