🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <368@wpg.UUCP> russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>
>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???  

Hear, hear!  I have had a continuous subscription to Scientific American
since 1972.  I estimate that I read thoroughly an average of two to three
articles in each issue, and skim through about half the rest.  The result
is that I have a passing acquaintance with the current state of many fields
which I otherwise wouldn't know a thing about.  I've read occasional
issues of the other popular science magazines, and rate them terrible
(Omni - no factual content to speak of, and a horrible tendency to
National Enquirism) to mediocre (Discover - not enough technical
sophistication).

I too am unhappy about the recent decline in S.A.  I just hope that the
other magazines go out of business soon, and let S.A. get back to doing
what it does well.

And while we're at it, do you think they could lure Martin Gardner out of
retirement again?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The authorities are excellent at amassing facts, though they do not
     always use them to advantage."
                                      Sherlock Holmes, "The Naval Treaty"

My opinions are my own; no-one else seems to want them.

Bruce Cohen
bang-syntax: {the real world}...!tektronix!ruby!brucec
at-syntax:   brucec@ruby.TEK.COM
overland:    Tektronix Inc., M/S 61-028, P.O. Box 1000, Wilsonville, OR  97070