Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <12220:Apr1602:09:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 91 02:09:41 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.232818.15851@athena.mit.edu> <12409:Apr1513:14:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <4967@lib.tmc.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 18

In article <4967@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> 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*??!

Many people involved with refereed journals would find the
aforementioned pretense to be exceedingly offensive. To put it simply,
it's not true, and nobody should attempt to make a group succeed with
false advertising.

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

Okay, I'll do so; I think I've made my points clear enough.

---Dan