🚀 go-pugleaf

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>In article <1991Apr14.232818.15851@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>>   I see nothing wrong with reviewers contacting the submitter of a package. 

>It's not *wrong*, just extremely unusual. The guidelines say ``Reviewers
>may contact you for information and clarification''; the default in
>journal publication is that referees ask the editor to forward comments
>and questions.

excuse me, but who the **** cares what's usual in the paper based
publication business? we're on a NET and that's just what makes it
possible to be faster, more flexible, more individual etc. do you
think i'd send paper mail to a submitter, or send it to the moderator
to forward it (which all adds waiting time) when i can send him email
directly, so i can get a answer REAL fast, like in some hours or so?
we're not into academic stuff here or whatever, but into SOURCES
were the typical mail will be "core dumped here and there" or
"what the hell does that function do?".

you know, first you complain that it will take very long for sources
to appear in c.s.r and then you say that overhead is usual. somewhat
contradictory, eh?

also, i'm not posting anonymously here. fine. what does that tell you?
nothing. i live 10000 miles away, and i can change my /etc/passwd as i
please. the same is probably correct for many of the reviewers. we want
to review sources. we do not testimony in the watergate affair.

>I'm glad you think you know what you're doing. Apparently that has very
>little to do with the guidelines. I suggest you hire a writer.

do you know what a "Paragraphenreiter" is?
-- 
   Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 [voice!]
                  public UNIX source archive [HST V.42bis]:
        scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp
                     uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home