John Anderson <ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3FBECF18.2A991C7F@attglobal.net>...
> 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

John, what will you think out next? ;-) Of course, you haven't visited
our journal and didn't see, the paper has two authors, and SELF is the
name of our laboratory (Special Laboratory for Fundamental
Elaboration). Poor baby! They have put him in a dark corner of
internet and didn't explain how to activate hyperlinks! But they had
no necessity to teach a baby, how to mud other's work. Anyway, you of
course cannot distinguish full text from the abstract and don't know,
what are the reasons of refereeing process: to check,
(a)     is the manuscript within the scope of journal;
(b)     the novelty of material;
(c)     is the proof correct;
(d)     is the material written and presented well.

Thus, should you really be my colleague physicist, you would enter our
journal and see, this is really the journal of our laboratory, so (a)
is satisfied. You would learn to read and would see, no one never
conducted such studies and obtained such results - this means, (b) is
also satisfied. You would reach the item 4.4 of the mentioned paper
and see, the calculations WE made on the basis of OUR phenomenology of
phenomenon are fully consistent with the experiental data; this is the
most weighty proof of correctness in physics. When bad boys from QM
try telling you, one phenomenon can be substantiated in different
ways, don't believe them. To begin with, try to imagine another
description of our experiment with the single conductor, but so that
it were consistent with the experimental results. Cannot you? So (c)
has been also satisfied. And (d) is satisfied automatically, as this
actually is our private journal. Should you be really the physicist,
you would concentrate on the material, not on the detail, has it such
oafish referees as you are which cannot match two words in their own
language, and you would not make a tragedy of shortcomings of our
translation but would be grateful that we have translated this
material for you from the language you don't know into your native.
And as far as you have not been taught even to such elementary things,
all your attempts to find fault in the things you never saw can raise
only my symphathy to the corner where 'they' have put you in the
internet. Poor baby, don't cry, your head is not fully quadratic, only
there where your single convolution bulges out. Don't try to butt with
it, baby, or the last will ossify into a horn. ;-)

Sergey.