On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:09:26 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
Well, after I refine it, with the assistance of the knowledgeable
readership of this newsgroup, I will submit it to the authors, JAMA,
AOPA, and AvWeb.

If JAMA publishes it, expect it to be cut down.

I thought about that too. Perhaps a brief summary of my analysis of
the JHU report, supported by the in-line critique, might overcome that
issue.

It probably needs to be
reformatted since I'm not sure the Usenet style of quoting the text being
commented on is acceptable.

It's a clumsy mechanism, but I was unable to think of a better format.
A brief summary might overcome that objection. Have you a better
idea?

A journal is going to alot you only so much
space, and you want it all to be used to make _your_ points. I'd therefore
suggest a rewrite so that it doesn't need to quote the original.


Good point. I'll see what I can do.

Do you see any glaring errors?

I'd need some time to review it. It's too long, I think, to send to JAMA.
Sure, there are lots of nits to pick, but unlike Usenet (where you don't
have to be brief - though the longer a post is, the less likely people will
read it to its end) I think you'll need to focus in on the one or two
aspect of their article you think are most in need of rebuttal and discard
the other criticisms.


I agree. The in-line critique format that I have initially used is
useful to me to call attention to almost all the issues I have with
the JHU report. It makes a good foundation upon which to compose a
summary of items with which I take issue.

All in my humble opinion!

Very much appreciated with sincere gratitude.