🚀 go-pugleaf

When the talk about the Scientific American "swimsuit issue" first got 
underway, I grinned a little and skipped over it...  realizing, of 
course, that the first set of articles had been posted by people who 
normally confine their...  ahem, "self-expression", to talk.bizarre.  
Unfortunately, it seems to have gotten out of hand...  because it was 
taken seriously by people who should have known better.  (No Offense 
Intended). 

For those of you who don't read Scientific American, the "swimsuit 
issue" was given its name by Patrisha Otuama (in jest, of course) owing 
to the reproduction of Renoir's "Seated Bather" on the cover.  The 
relevant article concerned research correlating fatness with fertility.  
If there is ANYONE out there who was titillated by Renoir's painting or 
the article text, I would be greatly surprised.  There is no way that 
the cover art would have increased sales to any segment of the 
population, with the possibly exception of those confined to mental 
institutions, so it hardly deserves the label of "T&A" as applied in 
several postings.  

Lum Johnson (article <7428@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>) is correct in 
pointing out that Scientific American is not just a magazine but an 
institution that DESERVES your subscription dollars.  

Most of us read Scientific American FOR THE ARTICLE CONTENT.  If the 
advertising is "stupid", as claimed by one reader, or if they promote 
subscriptions through Publisher's Clearinghouse techniques as pointed out 
by another, so what???  
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, POB 306, Metairie, LA 70004
AT&T:   +1 504 456 0001          COMPUSERVE: 72337,3261
UUCP:   {philabs,hpda,nbires,amdahl,...}!uunet!wpg!russ