$ <LEDERBERG>DUMPIT,TMP73 WED 22*SEP=76 81124

Dates 22 SEP 1976 1011EDT

Feons Joseph Welzenbaum (JOSEPH @ MIT#=MC)
Tos Buchanan at SUMEX#AIM

Message-ID: <2170,(MIT=MC] 09/22/76 102113352

As T now understand it, the Stanferd CS memo will consist of
MeCarthy's, Lederberg's, and your review, You have invited me to submit
my comments on any or all of these, So far so good? Now, since Josh's
review is arevision of the one to which I originally responded ==
indeed, it seems to have been revised {m part as a result of those
comments == my pesponse to the origninal is no longer appropriate, So
that has te go, On the other hand, Joknm seems disitnelined to modify (I
would say 'correct') his review, hence my response to him as recorded in
STHART mo, 58 seems stil) appropriate, AS far as your review, Bruce, is
concerned, I do not find it offensive (to say the very least) ard
therefore don'tt feel camoelled by anger to resnond to it. Indeed, I find
it sufficiently deep that I would not want to respond to it except after
considerable thought and ima fairly carefully written way, I think,
alasr I will mot find time for that, Perhaps then you had best go ahead
with only the three reviews and my response to John's,

Best
JOC,

P.8, Have vou seen Yorik Wilks! review for the BSIA? I also wrote a
short response to it, If you were to publish hiss I would ask vou to
preimt my response alo, If you send me your mafling address, I will send
you his stuff and mine (the marginal comments on his document are, of
couPse, mMine,)

Joe kas decided not to add comments on your preview or mina to
the CS memo, I suagest we just qo ahead then, OK?
Bruce