John Tuttle said:

> Please let people think for themselves and initiate an editorial
> section for the editors comments.  That's my suggestion.

I've been a fairly high-profile editor of narrow-gauge railway
preservation journals since 1961 and have made the governing
organisations of those journals very angry indeed with my freedom of
comment.

But I have a number of rules which, I am sorry to say, are not followed
by all such (railway journal) editors.

Official notices or articles made on behalf of the sponsoring organis-
ation are changed and corrected as little as possible, and no editorial
comment is specifically made to those pieces.  I may, however, comment
elsewhere on policies underlying them. (!)

Editorial comment attached in the form of footnotes to letters and
articles is limited strictly to amplifying detail or information.  The
article must be given space and freedom in the journal to make its point.
Sometimes this information will however have the effect of undermining
the point of the letter, as where a mistake about resources or costs has
been made.  Where a letter criticises someone, it is usual to hold it
until a response can be published along with it.

Some of these rules are not appropriate for an electronic discussion,
where immediacy is vital.

Editorial footnotes stand or fall by their aptness, respect for
the writer, wit and tact.  Robbie and Jody have kept their comments
lightweight and, where critical, gently so.

I take John's point, but on balance I tend to feel that removing MMD
editorial comments to a special area would have the effect of lending
them more authority than intended, and of clogging up communication as
readers switch to-and-from the articles or points referred to (assuming
they bother to).

Dan Wilson