On 1/5/07, Marion Sumerianlibrarian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> unfortunately, your conclusion is entirely off mark.
> i'm curious about the parameters because it's clear
> the selection process is always, unavoidably, skewed.

would love to know how, oh mysterious one,  my selections have been
skewed? Are they skewed to the good side or the bad side?

> why not be up front about it and let readers decide
> for themselves if they agree with those parameters?

I will be glad to forward onto you a week's worth of news alerts and
let you review them to see if I've missed anything that could be of
value. feel free to post stories that you feel that I have missed.

I think recent comments (both public and private) indicate clearly
that folks are happy with the selection parameters, but obviously you

> then, if peter ever cares to disclose the selection
> process, we can discuss what and to whom we shall
> serve it forth.

I think that if one were to review the past 10 year's worth of RAIN
postings that I have for the most part avoided any sort of political
bias in my selection. Here is one thing that I do that takes extra
effort. AP stories are not published in full by subscribing
newspapers. most if not all do some editing of the stories. I try
where possible to locate the full unexpurgated, unedited story

as for the selection process, well it has taken me over 10 years to
develop what I consider an intuition about what might be a good story

are you willing to take up the challenge? reviewing a weeks worth of stories?

would love to know if you can come up with a better selection process
that does not require more time

Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
Richmond, Va

List archives at
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance