🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr14.233634.16185@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>  I, on the other hand, believe that either (a) the people who voted for the
>group understood that when people said that c.s.r would be "based on" the
>journal review process, they meant that the basis would not necessarily be a
>one-to-one correspondence between what journals do and what c.s.r would do, or
>(b) the people who voted for the group have the same idea of how the relevant
>portions of the journal review process works as the group's moderator and
>reviewers.

One data point: I neither know nor care about the exact mechanics of peer-
reviewed journals, as I'm exceedingly unlikely to ever submit an article to
one. I read, understood fully, and voted for comp.sources.reviewed as
proposed. This included an explicit decision that the group's mechanics as
described in the proposal were a Good Thing.

I'm truly at a loss to understand Dan's obvious vendetta against the group.
What's wrong with another outlet for sources? We've seen the extremes of
Rich $alz' response time in postings from Dan and Jonathan, ranging from a
few days to several months. (No comment on Rich's performance as moderator
is intended, as I do not have all the facts.) I believe that c.s.r will not
achieve response times on the order of days, but neither will it take most
of a year, as safeguards have been built into the process.

Dan, if you don't like it, don't submit sources to it, but leave the rest
of us alone while we make use of it.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "X.400 is the mail system of the future, and I hope it stays that way."
                          -- Erik E. Fair