Last night I didn't publish three articles submitted by Craig Brougher
and two from Andy & Chris Taylor, regarding recent MMD articles by
Bernt Damm and Dave Saul.  At midnight Jody and I agreed that we
should talk later, because we were both too tired to be competent.

I wrote to the five authors collectively and attached the articles for
their information, and said simply, "These articles for Digest 971230,
which you wrote, or are the subject of, are deferred from publication
until Jody and I advise you."  Then at 2 AM I sent the Digest and went
to bed, exhausted.

When I next checked my e-mail late this morning there was a pile
of letters awaiting, all concerned about my action.  I wondered,
What's the problem here?  Deferred means delayed, not rejected.
N.B.:  I sent no replies. ...

This afternoon Jody and I discussed the tumult, which was fanned by
blitzes of e-mail.  We confirmed our long-standing philosophy that we
are committed to maintaining reasonable decorum in the Digest so that
free exchange of ideas can flow, and that MMD will not be an arena for
personal conflict.

Letters sent to us encourage MMD to support the traditional methods of
science, wherein experimental data and previous works may be questioned
and confirmed by others.  A letter from Matthew Caulfield seemed
especially lucid, and Matthew said it could be published (below).

Tomorrow we'll write to Craig and the others about the deferred articles;
It's too bad that folks have become so agitated, instead of waiting for
a response from Jody and me.

Craig, I'm sorry that you have already decided to quit writing to
MMD.  Let's let things cool off for a few days, and then we'll
talk privately.

Jody and I invite private correspondence about this incident;
please send it to <rollreq@foxtail.com>, the MMD administration
address which we share.

Robbie Rhodes & Jody Kravitz, MMD