"A tribute to Peter Killeen" was published in JEAB in May 9https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.70114), and since then we assumed he had died. Since then, several similar articles have been posted. However, none of the articles about him actually state that he has died, and all talk about him in the present tense (as in, "Peter is supportive of me" etc.) -- is this just the convention with articles like this, or is he alive? Additionally, what would explain multiple articles like this, since none mention an anniversary of a significant work etc.?
A simple google search does not turn up any notice.
Thanks! Yes, I know, I didn’t see any notice upon simple Google search either, but then at the bottom of the fist article you cited, the author used ast tense. “Peter was…” Which is why I asked you. Odd to see a pre-mortem tribute without cause, but maybe there was cause we don’t know of.
It was nice to read the Killeen articles. One has open access. No I don't think he passed away.
Thanks for this. oh, no! did Peter Killeen pass away?
"A tribute to Peter Killeen" was published in JEAB in May 9https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.70114), and since then we assumed he had died. Since then, several similar articles have been posted. However, none of the articles about him actually state that he has died, and all talk about him in the present tense (as in, "Peter is supportive of me" etc.) -- is this just the convention with articles like this, or is he alive? Additionally, what would explain multiple articles like this, since none mention an anniversary of a significant work etc.?
A simple google search does not turn up any notice.
Thanks! Yes, I know, I didn’t see any notice upon simple Google search either, but then at the bottom of the fist article you cited, the author used ast tense. “Peter was…” Which is why I asked you. Odd to see a pre-mortem tribute without cause, but maybe there was cause we don’t know of.