%%%% CP's comment:
%%%% This is a trial to make the evaluation process of scientific
%%%% papers more bidirectional. 
%%%% If you think that this is against some etiquette, inappropriate,
%%%% or against good manners, please let me know and I will stop it!!!

Comments for authors:

The paper is more a polemical pamphlet than a research paper.  The

%%%% CP's comment:
%%%% Well, I was angry when I wrote it. So it must be polemical.
%%%% It is not a pamphlet. It was written to inform researchers
%%%% about a dead end of science sold as the door to heaven.

author gives a reconstruction of the history of the so-called
"Inductionless Induction" with the declared objective of trying to
rectify the (according to the author) biased view given by H. Comon in
in the Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

Although I have found the paper interesting to read, it does not
provide any technical contribution (I am pretty sure this was not
inteded by authour anyway) 

%%%% CP's comment:
%%%% Yes, it was not intended to provide technical material.

and therefore I cannot recommend it for
publication.  The paper can be qualified as a position paper.

%%%% CP's comment:
%%%% It is a bit more than a position paper as the position
%%%% is (personal) history and not personal hope.
===================================================
Comments for authors:

The paper is rather succinct, however I like the style.

%%%% CP's comment:
%%%% This review is rather succinct, however I like the style.