🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr16.034810.8005@rick.doc.ca>
csr@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick as CSR Moderator) writes:
...
> As for examples of "real" journals that publish reviews, go to your
> university library and look up "Behavioural and Brain Sciences",
> published by Cambridge University Press.

Unfortunately, Andrew, this is non-responsive.  Read your quoted material
again:

> In article <12060:Apr1602:04:5091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
...
> > Out of 100 random journals, I'd be
> >surprised if you found one that published articles.

A remarkable assertion indeed, and one I'd be willing to bet my life savings
against!! :-) :-)

Seriously, Dan, as a long-time net reader and poster (almost 10 years),
allow me to describe to you the method I now almost invariably use when
posting a rebuttal to someone else's Usenet article:

	1)  Before I post, I re-read my article for typos, bad grammar, and
	factual errors.  I correct as many of them as I can find.

	2)  I then re-read the article again for tone.  I attempt to make it
	conform to normal social standards of politeness.

	3)  I then leave the article unposted overnight.

	4)  In the morning, I re-read it a 3rd time, and decide if it's really
	what I meant to say.  If not, I don't post it at all.

This method, similar to the "Emily Postnews" recommendations, has helped me
feel much more secure about the quality and tone of my postings in recent
years.  If you are not currently doing something like this, please give it a
try yourself, both for your sake and for ours.

					Bart Massey
					bart@cs.uoregon.edu