"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...

> It seems obvious to me that 
> the professionals who regularly post here
> investing their time and effort, are doing 
> so because of their need to look outside 
> of their own peer reviewed square.

Personally, I gain very little from this discussion group, which is
why I tend to disappear when my workload demands that I make better
use of my time. I think the real use of this forum is that it provides
a quick and easy way for the non-professional (evolutionary biologist)
to learn about evolutionary biology. Potentially, this newsgroup
*could* also facilitate informal discussion and exchange of ideas
between professional biologists. However, I think a great deal of
professionals who might otherwise contribute are put off by the
aggressive posting of cranks.

So, the flow of ideas here is largely top->down, i.e. educational
rather than contributing directly to evolutionary research. This is
where my motivation for participation lies - I am an educator as well
as a researcher. When I see flagrant misrepresentation of evolution
theory in messages on this newsgroup, I worry that those who take an
interest in, but are largely ignorant of, evolution theory are going
to be misled. I step in briefly to point out such faults when I see
them.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that most of the experts who post to
this newsgroup are also motivated by 'Education' rather than
'Research'. I also perceive no barrier to good ideas posed by the
current peer review system. With both these points in mind, I don't
see what a separate amateur peer review system is going to achieve. If
the likes of John Edser desparately want to get their ideas in print,
then they should, like legitimate researchers, submit these ideas to
the existing peer review system; or else they can seek out a vanity
publisher.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/15/04 5:55:43 AM