Re: Date limit set on first Americans

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
> >> >prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
> >> >"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
> >> >selection...
> >> 
> >> I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
> >> asked for his opinion.
> >
> >For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop 
> >the semantic games and have some good grace.
> 
> When I wrote the above I was using 'peer review' in the modern sense
> as it is applied in the publication of technical and scientific
> papers. I am sorry if the subtlety of the distinction escapes you.

What do you think modern peer reviewers are asked for if not their 
opinions Eric? Their considered opinions, hopefully, Their informed 
opinions, certainly or they are badly selected. Bu their opinions, 
certainly. 

Or maybe you have some other idea of what editors wish from peer 
reviewers? That was the basis of my objection to you playing semantic 
games. I am truly sorry if your information on the subject is so lacking 
that you were unaware of the functions of a peer reviewer so leading you 
to an egregious mistake. If this is the case please accept my heartfelt 
condolences for your profound ignorance.

Peter

-- 
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.