Article View: sci.misc
Article #745Re: Omni-Americans
From: Donald Lindsay
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 1988 04:13
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 1988 04:13
17 lines
1147 bytes
1147 bytes
>Read Omni instead of Scientific American. It's much better because it has >all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e. >science yet-to-be-fact). Don't read Omni. On the science side, it's for people who want to think they are thinking. It doesn't want to confuse the issues with mere facts. On the science fiction side, it can be good, but I find paperbacks a better buy. Do buy Scientific American. A Harvard Lampoon editor once said: "The secret of a good lampoon is to have better writing than the original. That's why we never did a Scientific American." One reason it <<looks>> smaller is because they switched to thinner paper. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1018@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsayReferences:
<5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay From: lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: Omni-Americans Message-ID: <1018@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> Date: 3 Mar 88 04:13:26 GMT References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 17