name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote in
message news:...
> "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.

Maybe these professionals are put off by aggressive 
thinking?

> 
> 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.

It would seem then, from how you describe yourself here, that you are
relatively unconcerned with finding flagrant misrepresentations of
evolution in the standard literature of evolutionary theory?  Am I
right?

> 
> 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.

The immediacy of this electronic medium allows one to 
get inside other people's heads in a manner that is 
not possible in any kind of paper based medium, 
peer-review based on not.  My impression of the 
journals--what few of them consider the theoretic 
aspects of evolutionary biology to be worth 
discussing--is that 99% of the time the respective 
contributors talk past each other.  They get away with 
it because the medium, paper publishing, is so slow 
and unwieldy.  You can't get away with much on the 
internet.  On the internet when somebody's being 
evasive or misleading they get called on it.  Maybe 
this is what these professionals find so threatening 
about the internet.

Jim
---
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 11/17/04 9:38:23 AM