Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

> John Anderson <ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3FB83B47.3D20EF97@attglobal.net>...
> > Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> >
> > > John Anderson <ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3FB5A624.D8618682@attglobal.net>...
> > > > Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Colleagues,
> > > > >
> > > > > We published a new paper
> > > > >
> > > > > " Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "
> > > > >
> > > > > in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wow.  What power!  You peer review yourself.
> > > >
> > > > In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.
> > > >
> > > > John Anderson
> > >
> > > I feel, you are font of this paper. You have no other arguments and
> > > you understood what is your own knowledge of pitecantrop worthy.
> > >
> >
> > I realize that English may not be your native language.  But I can'trespond to something that is not
> > only incoherent, but which contains
> > stuff like "pitecantrop worthy" which seems to be your own
> > creation.
> >
> > John Anderson
>
> John,
>
> Had you an intention to respond sensibly? ;-) Seemingly, you began
> accusing me of self-reviewing and brought to NG the lexicon of cheap
> pubs. True, I don't know, do you grasp the difference between the
> abstract and review? ;-) I can say only, this is not your invention -
> to clutch at the slip of opponent's pen, while understanding full lack
> of own arguments. Yes, I was grammatically mistaken (the meaning
> remained clear) - was it so important as your prejudice and cheap
> jargon in communication with a colleague? Would you first learn the
> ethics of behaviour, then learn a little the methodology of physics,
> then get in discussion with your hoofs.
>
>

You talked about "in our journal "SELF Transactions".

I responded to two things,  "our" and "SELF".

It sounds like you were using the royal we and talking
about your private journal.  The term SELF only reinforced
that.

If this "journal" only takes abstracts, which your present
post seems to imply, then it isn't a reviewed journal
Which is what I was saying that you implied.

You're not a colleague of mine, my friend, you're a crank.

John Anderson