In case there was any misunderstanding, my recent message about the response to my question about the neuroquantology journal was not intended to discourage further response but rather to encourage further such questions from others as the occasion should arise. It struck me as a use for the list which we have not exploited sufficiently. Nor was there any intention to be critical of any of the responses. Quite the contrary, I was feeling pleased about the quality of the responses and thinking about how helpful they all were. Frank expressions of judgment and surmise are always valuable. I was merely remarking that any conclusions drawn about the journal on that basis would have to be drawn by us as individual assessments for personal purposes, rather than as pseudo-objective impersonal conclusions about its value or status.. I suppose that is all obvious enough, but sometimes I sense that my position as manager as well as participant has unintentionally suggested something unintended.
Joe Ransdell -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - Release Date: 6/23/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
