Curtis Johnson wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:

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

 RJT> Curtis Johnson wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:
 CJ>  
 RJT> Ok,  what's your source for this info?
 CJ>  
 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 

 CJ>    I sadly have to agree with you here.  It was sold to a German
 CJ> publishing conglomerate a few years back, and the suits probably
 CJ> wanted a fatter margin.  So in creeps an article or two with
 CJ> comparatively little content but an opportunity for pretty
 CJ> pictures, a piece or two less, a slight but noticable dumbing down.

That does describe it pretty well.  And it's a damn shame.

 CJ> I bet you miss Jeard Walker's helmsmanship at the "Amateur 
 CJ> Scientist" (lots of cool projects there then).

Yeah.

The thing is,  that's happened to so damn *many* magazines,  in recent
years.  Over and over again.  It's almost as if the suits you mention are
trying to squeeze what money they can out of it,  and then when it crashes,
 they just walk away.

 CJ>    I may still end up subscribing myself, though.  It's still the
 CJ> best source for a long piece by the actual scientists doing the 
 CJ> work for the intelligent layman.

I think I'll perhaps check it out at the library before I make any more purchases.

 CJ> The next best is, IMHO, _American Scientist_, but the monographs 
 CJ> there are pitched at a higher technical level, the only 
 CJ> illustrations usually being diagrams, and equations encouraged.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that,  though it's not my normal
cup of tea.  The illustrations and diagrams that Scientific American used
to have were some of the best part of it.

 CJ> Sort of mid-level between _Scientific American_ and a 
 CJ> _Science_/_Nature_ monograph, you're less likely to venture into a 
 CJ> piece if you're not directly interested in the field.  And its 
 CJ> audience is aimed at the working scientist.

I'll have to give it a look,  though my appetite for magazines is way less
than what it used to be.

---