> Andrew writes:
>
> > I tried to explain to her why it's important for science
> > journals to have a source of income independent of the publisher:
> >
> > Journals that are supported by advertising usually have much
> > more editorial independence than one that is solely subsidized by
> > a publisher. They can (and often do) tick off advertisers without
> > lasting consequence. But cross a publisher who pays for all the
> > ink, wood pulp, and utilities and it's lights out.
> >
> > Out of this general statement about editorial freedom of science
> > journals that pay for themselves, Judy invents a whopper of a
> > malicious lie that I "suggested that the AMA is unethical."
> > She even put this scurrilous falsehood into the subject line of her posts.
[snipt]
> (In fact I never wrote the words Andrew misleadingly puts in
> quotes, but that's relatively minor.)
[snipt]
Oh, yeah? Here is the heading of her scurrilous post from DejaNews:
From: jstein@panix.com (Judy Stein)
Subject: Andrew Skolnick suggests the AMA is unethical
Date: 1998/05/25
Message-ID: <2mQQrq2Bb2pT079yn@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
As many on these newsgroups have noted, Judy is a habitual defamer.
This one is worth adding to Judy's "Junkyard Dog Site." It's URL will be:
--Andrew Skolnick http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/photography/
I speak only for myself, not for any other individual or organization.
Originally Posted:
Subject: Re: Andrew's sixgun is smoking heavily again
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:50:20 -0500
From: "Andrew A. Skolnick"
Organization: I speak only for myself, not for any other individual or organization.
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, sci.skeptic