That's a really good example about the dogs, and a useful phrase to know, as well. Thanks!

I would expect as much. Can anyone even make a good case for the existence of "Journals" -- as companies that get to sell access to research they didn't fund? I don't believe any scientists are getting rich off royalties from them, right?

They seem to me to be like a worse version of the record label racket. It seems like peer review itself should provide enough signal (drawing on the reputations of who decided to review it) to distinguish a Serious Paper that Really Matters from some slop fabricated by a conspiracy theorist in their basement. And surely the bandwidth costs etc. are so low as to be borne by the universities themselves, either by each of them self-hosting, or by funding a cooperative to host them all in one place. Or whatever Arxive is, of course.

We'll have to ask them. I suspect denial of decent council.

Out of office by the time the Maoist junta got going?

The conservative view (at least nominally) is to let you manage your own life, with special support for those conceived, but as yet unborn.

That's really not how this works, sorry. There will always be a spectrum, within and across individuals.