CPN

From: Douglas W. Darnowski (Douglas.W.Darnowski@washcoll.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 23 1999 - 07:52:26 PST

Next message: Bryan and Leslie Lorber: "Re: CPN"
Previous message: Douglas W. Darnowski: "Looking for Craig Gardner"
Next in thread: Eric Smith: "CPN"
Maybe reply: Eric Smith: "CPN"
Maybe reply: Steven Stewart: "CPN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: 23 Dec 1999 10:52:26 EST
From: Douglas.W.Darnowski@washcoll.edu (Douglas W. Darnowski)
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg4240$foo@default>
Subject: CPN

CPN is a pleasure to read and very well done. Compared to the style
used in the most prominent scientific journals such as Nature and
Science, which are awful to try to read in order to understand the work
in detail, CPN is a joy. Without peer review of experiments or other
formal data, any nonsense can be published as tested fact--just look at
the junk which you can find on the www on any number of topics. There
is plenty of space in CPN devoted to various interesting items such as
N&V.

I agree with Jan's defense of CPN. ICPS and CPN make sense, and they each
perform their function well. Leave alone systems that work.

Doug Darnowski

Next message: Bryan and Leslie Lorber: "Re: CPN"
Previous message: Douglas W. Darnowski: "Looking for Craig Gardner"
Next in thread: Eric Smith: "CPN"
Maybe reply: Eric Smith: "CPN"
Maybe reply: Steven Stewart: "CPN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:09 PST