-=> Quoting Roy J. Tellason to Curtis Johnson <=-

 RJT> Curtis Johnson wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:
 
 RJT> Ok,  what's your source for this info?
 
 CJ>    This has been in the mainstream science top-flight science
 CJ> journals (_Science_, _Nature_, _Scientific American_, etc.) for
 CJ> *decades*, Roy.  But then the likes of Rush Limbaugh aren't going
 CJ> to tell you that.

 RJT> No,  but you just did.  I used to read Scientific American, at least
 RJT> occasionally,  and then stopped for quite a number of years.  I did
 RJT> pick up an issue recently,  in the past few months,  but it didn't
 RJT> seem to be up to the standards that I remembered,  so I didn't pick 

	I sadly have to agree with you here.  It was sold to a German
publishing conglomerate a few years back, and the suits probably wanted
a fatter margin.  So in creeps an article or two with comparatively
little content but an opportunity for pretty pictures, a piece or two
less, a slight but noticable dumbing down.  I bet you miss Jeard Walker's
helmsmanship at the "Amateur Scientist" (lots of cool projects there
then).
	I may still end up subscribing myself, though.  It's still the
best source for a long piece by the actual scientists doing the work
for the intelligent layman.  The next best is, IMHO, _American
Scientist_, but the monographs there are pitched at a higher technical
level, the only illustrations usually being diagrams, and equations
encouraged.  Sort of mid-level between _Scientific American_ and a
_Science_/_Nature_ monograph, you're less likely to venture into a
piece if you're not directly interested in the field.  And its
audience is aimed at the working scientist.

--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]