Three Dialogues

Three Dialogues
№ 1. With a person from another organization who came on business.
— Yes, and one more thing… You're said to be an expert on amphibians? What do you think — is this a joke (he hands me a printout of the article "People, Hybrids, Frogs" from KT #664; /node/92)?
— That's actually my article.
— What a coincidence! And you wrote this seriously — that humans interbred with chimpanzees?
— I allow for that possibility, based on the assumptions set out in the article.
— But how could you write this if you're not entirely sure? What if you mislead the reader?
№ 2. With a publishing house editor.
— My narrow area of interest is the evolution of amphibians, the theory of evolution.
— Well, nothing on that topic can be published for the non-specialist reader.
— Just imagine that there is a computer-related magazine that can print things like that… (over time I show him the article "Tiktaalik and Evolution"; /node/98).
№ 3. With a colleague.
— For someone engaged in science, writing articles in "murzilkas" — non-peer-reviewed and non-specialized journals — is an unethical act.
— Why? It gives me reason to think about something new for myself, to put forward hypotheses in an area that interests me. Probably I would never even formulate my opinion on some matter unless I wrote about it. If readers interested in the topic happen to read it in the magazine — that's a great stroke of luck that does no one any harm!
— If you want to put forward a hypothesis, you must submit an article expounding it to a journal where it will be reviewed by a competent specialist in that field. He must verify the compatibility of your thoughts with accepted scientific methodology, the correctness of your reasoning, and is obliged to suppress any irresponsible assertions. Everything else is unacceptable profanation.
And why is Computerra not only a magazine interesting to read, but also a magazine in which it's interesting to write?