> In article <1993Mar6.172540.27349 at news.columbia.edu>,
>dan at cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) wrote:
> > The point is that you can't take computer communications too seriously.
> > What about forged mail and news articles? This is trivially easy for
> > many people. I could forge an abstract from some famous lab with a suprising
> > or humorous result. You just can't depend on computer communications to
> > be authoritative.
Given the rapid feedback on the net, a stunt like this would be
quickly found out if the paper was of any significance. I think this
and the concerns about editing are getting a bit extreme. These
concerns didn't deter the physicists from their effort. Perhaps the
implication is that biologists just can't be trusted compared to