Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu
From: jmaynard@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <4967@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 14:58:43 GMT
References: <6787:Apr1420:38:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.232818.15851@athena.mit.edu> <12409:Apr1513:14:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: usenet@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu

In article <12409:Apr1513:14:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>You have the right to your beliefs. Just don't pretend that this has
>anything to do with journal publication.

One more time:

*WHAT* *DIFFERENCE* *DOES* *IT* *MAKE*??!

The guidelines as discussed here match what the proposal (which you apparently
didn't read beyond the point where it said that it was *MODELED* on journal
publication) that was voted on said in all material points.

Why can't you drop the subject until we get some actual examples of the process
inaction?
-- 
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