It is my new policy to begin posting referee reports for my papers. Many people feel that the refereeing process in the astronomical journals needs some improvement. In general, I have found all my referee reports to be quite good, including the heavily critical ones. Since referee's are anonymous, there is no accountability. However, if we all started posting our referee reports, then at least the community can get to see the range of referee comments. This would, at least, provide a set of standards for the individual referee to strive for.

Unfortunately, some of the editors of the ApJ still do not use email, so this report was scanned and posted as an image of the hardcopy report. Since the referee requested not to see the manuscript again, our response is only seen here.

I personally hate the Supplements. No one reads them, and they cost more in paper charges than the main journal. I also don't understand their role anymore in our current computer age. The editors always state that the "Supplements are the most cited papers". However, I can't seem to convince them that citing catalogs in a knee-jerk fashion (e.g., Arp 1963, Abell 1965) does not imply that anyone is actually reading the papers.

This is true, I intended simpler to mean less star formation. But sporadic is certainly not simple. Poor English here.

The optical and HI data is presented to support our claim that a morphologically selected sample of dwarfs is indeed a sample of small, low-mass objects. Since this is the point of the paper (other than just publishing the catalog itself), we can either make the claim and defer justification to latter papers or present the graphics to support our claim and defer the actual data to the latter papers. We chose the latter and assume that if you don't believe us you can go read the later papers.

There's no intent of non-critically since the data is all present at the Web site. Our interpretation is contained in the companion papers. And don't call me silly.

Oops, you get so used to using NED nowadays that you forget to trace all the catalogs. In this case, we restricted all the HI data to come from the Huchtmeier and Richter HI catalog for UGC objects. The UGC has deeper surface brightness coverage than any other catalog, so is best suited for comparison to this new sample of dwarfs. Most of this is covered in the text, but we have added additional discussion at the point in the paper where the HI data is introduced.

A Freeman disk is a fiducial galaxy profile based on the Freeman (1970) value of a mean central surface brightness of 21.65 B mag arcsecs-2. There are many papers on this topic, this is not one of them.

Its always disappointing when I find a referee who has not memorized all my previous work. I don't understand why its not a law in this country that small children be required to recite sections of my past papers before going to bed every night. Until that time, we have expanded the discussion on other dwarf samples and characteristics to correctly and quantitatively cite all our past work.

Actually, what is said in the paper is ``Lastly, the mean colors of the sample are quite blue (V-I between 0.5 and 1.0), but this is typical for LSB galaxies (Schombert et al. 1992, McGaugh 1992) regardless of dwarf or non-dwarf classification.'' Which has all the necessary references. The typical reader might find the process of reading the LSB papers rewarding.

What appears to have happened here is that, in the xeroxing process at the ApJ offices, all the small dots (ZCAT and UGC HI samples) disappeared. See the Web version of this figure on the previous page. We will attempt to send a camera-ready copy by horse and carriage to our modern and up-to-date ApJ offices.