[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Trying to stop the strands from unravelling
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Trying to stop the strands from unravelling
- From: mike cole <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:34:43 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=xfqsKYp+IXdP1bAZoyfTEooA3UIOTAwlwvAz5AG5t/s=; b=nERQee227mpwbYzWplDC1VfnTksfMggwTUWIQaMug/jhKCLw6nNuIXoSyPBWTyFIxH eSXtYihgmMyUZQA6quazbaaYcIkvtpZEfpHiaK/tcy8mvsIWgNBhKZKuUn3yE7D9dO5D TdoHKot3iNXLKoUa2MsCz+APpg0eDBW85FaaE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; b=fLZjMa1gVa4E1qt6Rza5kgqh1AaBdDlNerLcDJLRNhuM3cvBcfzP6IbEjU45q0CyHp h97gbhRSlLp+D8wbpjP9OM/FU4LqTiGSJGkwrUXu/6HUxvRNX2jWCFqofA3rD1zhIZOV sEmcrEXjAv6/o7ZyOzX2UNRlccpnieoV6S/GQ=
- In-reply-to: <6788279B-5387-444D-A05A-B7C38596B614@uvic.ca>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <6788279B-5387-444D-A05A-B7C38596B614@uvic.ca>
- Reply-to: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
X-actly right about the tradeoffs, Michael. If one both reads and
participates in MCA and in xmca, its as good as one kind of both worlds--
and add the discussions
of articles that give broad feedback to authors without a long wait.
Suggestions for how to do it better warmly welcomed, but anyone willing to
do a little more work!!
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi David and Mike,
> what is good about xmca also is bad about xmca, what is good about mca is
> also bad.
> I think that MCA serves a need that Mike wanted to address when he moved
> from the newsletter to a formal journal. People now get credit at their
> institutions, and this is good. Of course, we have to go through peer review
> . . . or companies might just pull the plug as Elsevier has done with
> Medical Hypotheses, which published unreviewed articles with the outcome
> that some were promoting extreme views on AIDS and other issues. Similarly,
> on xmca one can say things that does not hold up water in a paper, and this
> is what is good about MCA, that people can't just say anything but have to
> argue tightly. You can't just yack, which is what happens here at times.
> David and others (Andy in an upcoming commentary) that I personally do not
> agree with, and yet we publish it as a commentary.
> So, to contradict Mike a bit, there is a place in MCA to blow off:
> COMMENTARIES----David did so not too long ago----but we also distinguish
> those pieces from reviewed articles, precisely we want those who choose MCA
> as their outlet to get credit at their home institutions. And, we don't want
> MCA to be like xmca, because then we would only need one of the two not
> both. And xmca is archived, you can print it if you want.
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 4:10 PM, mike cole <email@example.com> wrote:
> I agree with your characterization of xmca and mca, David. Working to make
> the second as much like the first as possible, and really liked the old
> Newsletter method, but lost out to the younger generation.... it were ever
> > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> I think that MCA and xmca are very different, and I am always sorry but
> >> not really surprised when told by reviewers that I can be a peer in one
> >> not the other. I like to think of myself as primarily a researcher and
> >> secondarily a kvetch, but my record says otherwise.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list