Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <1991Apr14.233634.16185@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References: <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> <9418: Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <scs.671464069@hela.iti.org> <16390:Apr1305:56:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.190013.9991@athena.mit.edu> <22406@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 23:36:34 GMT
Lines: 55

In article <22406@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
|> In article <1991Apr14.190013.9991@athena.mit.edu>
|> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
|> 
|> >  My impression is that Mr. Bernstein seems to be saying that the people who
|> >voted for the group were not smart enough to understand what they were voting
|> >for.
|> 
|> I really don't know how you could have formed that impression from what
|> Dan actually wrote in public.

  Do not assume that my impression of Dan's position on this issue has been
formed solely on the basis of what he has written in public.  He and I have
exchanged E-mail about this.  I will not quote at length from Dan's E-mail,
because I do not believe it is fair to do that without asking him; I will say,
however, that at one point he told me that he felt "shame" for the Usenet
because it had allowed c.s.r to progress as far as it has.

  If he wishes to correct my impression of what he's saying, he can do so.

|> Once can [on occasion] accuse Dan of many
|> things, but not of under-handed double-talk.

  Actually, my impression of Mr. Bernstein is that he does, on occasion,
indulge in "under-handed double-talk."  I believe that much of what he has
written about c.s.r can be characterized as "under-handed double-talk."

|> If he actually thought the
|> voters were being stupid, he would have said so. I think he has clearly
|> noted where he thinks there is a problem, and that does not include the
|> voters.

  What he has said is that c.s.r's advocates are claiming that it will be
based on the journal review process, that people who voted for the group did
so based on that assertion, that in fact c.s.r is *not* based on the journal
process, and that therefore the people who voted for the group are not getting
what they paid for.

  I believe that this argument implies that Dan does not believe the people
who voted for the group are capable of judging exactly what they were voting
for.

  I, on the other hand, believe that either (a) the people who voted for the
group understood that when people said that c.s.r would be "based on" the
journal review process, they meant that the basis would not necessarily be a
one-to-one correspondence between what journals do and what c.s.r would do, or
(b) the people who voted for the group have the same idea of how the relevant
portions of the journal review process works as the group's moderator and
reviewers.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710
