Role of Message Boards in Disseminating New Research

[Supe]

Lynn,

Et tu, Brute?

As I recall, Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Junius Brutus enjoyed mutual respect. I asked the individual if he had at least availed himself of the free first issue and got no reply, so I guess not.

Don.

[Captain Hook]

Both. Well, if Eduardo is kind enough to translate my prose into unbroken English.

Salut David,

Bons baisers de Londres!

Je ne crois pas que tu aies besoin de mon aide pour écrire en Anglais, mais si tu y tiens, je serais prêt à te donner un coup de main. Et avec plaisir.

A plus,
Eduardo

(Capitaine Crochet)

[Supe]

DVV,

Don's review

It is not my review. it is a magazine that I edit which carries articles by the likes of Johnathan Hainsworth, Tom Wescott, Mike Hawley, Joe Chetcuti, David Gates and others with provocative theories and new information you won't find elsewhere.

But should this field be dedicated . . . several reviews ?

Gee, that is funny but I have emails since I started the New Independent Review from editors at Ripperologist who say that competition can only aid the field. But what would they know?

Don.

[lynn cates]

conspiracy

Hello Don. Hmm, sounds like a conspiracy. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

I have nothing against any review, and your irony hardly impresses me.
The question I'm asking (mainly to myself) is not completely undue.
I've seen, in my own field, many reviews that have disappeared after some time. It's in no way what I predict nor what I wish for the review you're currently editing (see, I can learn). But concerning my own field, I must say it has caused unecessary "dissemination" and it's not easy sometimes to get access to an article published in a review that has quickly disappeared.

[DVV]

Salut David,

Bons baisers de Londres!

Je ne crois pas que tu aies besoin de mon aide pour écrire en Anglais, mais si tu y tiens, je serais prêt à te donner un coup de main. Et avec plaisir.

A plus,
Eduardo

(Capitaine Crochet)

Salut Eduardo ! quel plaisir de te croiser.
Merci !

[lynn cates]

more than one

Hello Don, David. I've read all extant issues of "The New Independent Review" and can attest to its importance in ripper studies.

One magazine only can allow writers to become sloppy. It's the same in my field--many philosophy journals.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Thanks Lynn. I'm not surprised but it's good to hear.
As I said, I have nothing against anybody, that wasn't my point.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello David. Of course.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[jmenges]

I've seen, in my own field, many reviews that have disappeared after some time. It's in no way what I predict nor what I wish for the review you're currently editing (see, I can learn). But concerning my own field, I must say it has caused unecessary "dissemination" and it's not easy sometimes to get access to an article published in a review that has quickly disappeared.

If there were only one Ripper website people frequented, one Ripper magazine people read, and one (lets say) Ripper podcast people listened to, and either or all of these disappeared, where would that leave us? To me the suggestion that it would be best if there was a sole repository for ideas and information ignores the likely risk of losing everything should it go away.

JM

[DVV]

There can be 2, 3, or 4 ripper reviews, it doesn't double, triple or quadruple the number of readers, methinks.

[jmenges]

Methinks you were not replying to me, but if so, methinks you missed my point.

JM

[DVV]

I don't give a ****, methinks

[jmenges]

Ah. I see. Thank you.

JM

[DVV]

Don't mention it.