In article <93004.094133FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>> Lazzaro has since attempted to buttress his case with further arguments.
>While I accept the principle that making rules which cover every case is often
>not possible, I personally do not find Lazzaro's arguments that PNAS is a
>special case very convincing. The following note I received from someone whose
>anonymity I will respect, does not detract from my assessment of Lazzaro's case
>>"The US. NAS is frequently in a state of embarassment when Nobel
>prizes are awarded to non-members. There have also been several cases
>where individuals declined membership since they "did science not
You are changing the focus of the discussion from the details of a policy, to
rumour and innuendo. There is only one issue to resolve:
Is PNAS any different from an edited book?
I have made a convincing case that there is no difference, and you
have chosen to ignore my arguments and turn to political issues. I
have no interest in a discussion on that level. The specific case of
PNAS is not the salient issue, the issue is the validity of the
"edited book" journal format as an important form of scientific
expression that should not be excluded by any policies.