Subj : Reviews
To   : Richard Meic
From : Kevin Gibson
Date : Fri Jul 20 2001 01:20 pm

-

 Hello Richard,

 I've "ghosts" that are critics.  Perhaps I've mentioned this
 to you previously.  In any event, I'm treated to a running
 commentary on various topics by these "ghosts" which have a
 rather obsessive interest in my activities.  I will occasionally
 discuss the remarks and my interaction with these spooks and
 am currently having such a discussion in the Holysmoke echo.
 Here's a recent comment from one of "the watchers:"

 > There is nothing worse than being peerless in a peer-review system.

 One wonders who thinks himself peerless.

 My first thought was of the Lord of the Flies.

 What would it mean if you were without peer?

 If, for instance, a group far exceeds all others in its access to
 and command of technology, so that it has "no peers," is that a
 good thing?  Why or why not?

 Why would one participate in a peer-review system if he considered
 himself without peer?


-

-+- QuikEdit 2.41R+

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Sursum Corda! BBS-New Orleans 1-504-897-6006 USR33k6 (1:396/45)

.