rissa@ddsw1.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) (02/23/88)
It's not the things you do that tease and hurt me bad oops oops that's not what I wanted to say bere. I remember now. What I REALLY WANTED to say was this: what is it with those people at "Scientific American" anyway? Is March 1988 supposed to be their "swimsuit issue" or what? Debby Harried "critical ratio of fat to lean mass is important to fecundity" I mean give me a break here, guys
ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (02/25/88)
In article <777@ddsw1.UUCP> rissa@ddsw1.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > >What I REALLY WANTED to say was this: what is it with those >people at "Scientific American" anyway? Is March 1988 supposed >to be their "swimsuit issue" or what? > > Debby Harried > Are you telling me that the March issue is talking about "strings"?
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/26/88)
In article <777@ddsw1.UUCP> rissa@ddsw1.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >It's not the things you do that tease and hurt me bad The date is _off_; that crack about older men hurt my feelings; I'm going back to Catalina and accept the adoration of the halter top and short-shorts cut off jeans crowd to drown my sorrow in beautiful downtown Avalon. >oops oops Too late to beg; quick to anger, slow to forgive, that's my motto. >that's not what I wanted to say bere. Here, bere, everywhere, when you bruise my ego, I'm blue for weeks afterwards. >I remember now. Rub two neurons together, already you've exceeded Trisha's resources by 100%. >What I REALLY WANTED to say was this: what is it with those >people at "Scientific American" anyway? Is March 1988 supposed >to be their "swimsuit issue" or what? You haven't been playing "find the nude in Newsweek" recently, have you. Sex sells, and Scientific American has been having trouble attracting ad revenues recently. That mag used to be twice as thick. > Debby Harried Star of "Beach Blanket Bimbo's", chairperson of "do all your dissipating while you're young", ltd. >"critical ratio of fat to lean mass is important to fecundity" >I mean give me a break here, guys Well, my soon-to-be-ex managed to pork up to about twenty stone before I took to sleeping on the couch, but look sideways at the pill bottle for a couple days, and another mewler nine months later, right on schedule. Besides, it's not a year since the study showing that men think women are sexy looking five pounds heavier than the women think they should be. Maybe we know something? Kent, the (certifiably fertile, and skinny as hell, go figure) man from xanth.
scm@gtx.com (Sue Miller) (02/27/88)
In article <1761@mipos3.intel.com> ekwok@cadev4.UUCP (Edward C. Kwok) writes: -In article <777@ddsw1.UUCP> rissa@ddsw1.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) writes: -> ->What I REALLY WANTED to say was this: what is it with those ->people at "Scientific American" anyway? Is March 1988 supposed ->to be their "swimsuit issue" or what? -> -> Debby Harried -> -Are you telling me that the March issue is talking about "strings"? I'm a frayed knot!! -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Sue Miller {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,seismo}!sun!sunburn!gtx!scm ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (02/29/88)
1) Each issue since the takeover has been slimmer than the last... 2) Stupid advertising. 3) Now T&A. I've been reading Sci Am since I was 11 (28 years), and it is probably the source of 80% of what I know outside my field. Its loss would be a catastrophe! SUBSCRIBE! NOW!
lum@apatosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) (03/01/88)
In article <2736@gryphon.CTS.COM> edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes: > > 1) Each issue since the takeover has been slimmer than the last... > 2) Stupid advertising. > 3) Now T&A. > > I've been reading Sci Am since I was 11 (28 years), and it is > probably the source of 80% of what I know outside my field. Its > loss would be a catastrophe! SUBSCRIBE! NOW! Agreed, Sci Am is an institution whose loss would be most regrettable! Over the last several years it has been getting harder and harder for them to find advertisers, accounting for much page loss and some content loss. Hopefully, they can broaden the base of their readership and thus their appeal to advertisers without too much obvious pandering. And keep in mind also it could have been even worse. Not so long ago they were denying rumours, in a way that implied they might in fact be true and that they were seeking a white knight to rescue them, that they were about to be bought by none other than the press lord of sleaze ... Rupert Murdoch! -=- Lum Johnson lum[%osu-20]@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu "You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
kdo@edsel (Ken Olum) (03/01/88)
Not only this, but recently I received a subscription offer from this formerly reputable publication in the full Publisher's Clearinghouse style: "Subscribe now to be entered in our sweepstakes for the amazing grand prize of ... no purchase necessary." The article justifying the "(no) swimsuit issue" didn't seem to have as much content as I'm used to seeing in this magazine. If they are going to give up their quality in search of readership I don't see why we should support them. Ken Olum edsel!kdo@labrea.stanford.edu
jad@dayton.UUCP (John A. Deters) (03/01/88)
$ flame -on I had a hard time dealing with that latest issue. How many of you read the article on cranes? Jeez, I'd have been happy to turn in a report like that in my English classes, maybe, or possibly an engineering class, but to publish it in Scientific American? What, were the authors the sons of the publisher or something? I was *disappointed* to see that article in there. Quality Control has gone to hell in a bucket lately. $ flame -off -- -john deters Dayton Hudson Department Store Company uucp: rutgers!dayton!jad MIS 1060/700 on the Mall/Mpls, MN 55402 ARTHUR: "A scratch? Your arm's off!" BLACK KNIGHT: "It's only a flesh wound."
jeffw@midas.TEK.COM (Jeff Winslow) (03/02/88)
Oh fer Gawd's sake people...
T & A? Swimsuit issue?
This over a Renoir, an ancient figurine, and a picture of the back of a
decent female bodybuilder? Or was it the anatomical drawings?
Grow up.
Jeff {snarl snarl snarl} Winslowrissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) (03/04/88)
In article <7428@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lum@apatosaur.UUCP writes: >Agreed, Sci Am is an institution whose loss would be most regrettable! > >Over the last several years it has been getting harder and harder for them to >find advertisers, accounting for much page loss and some content loss. >Hopefully, they can broaden the base of their readership and thus their appeal >to advertisers without too much obvious pandering. "Publishers Weekly" discussed SA's financial woes a couple of years ago pointing out that there really is only room for one general science magazine in the marketplace and that SA was losing more and more of its advertisers and subscribers to the new science magazines (ie, Omni, New Scientist, Science, etc). PW predicted that Omni would be the first to go, but that in any case, Scientific American was facing a very bleak future. Oh, well, remember money talks. . t r i s h a o t u a m a
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (03/04/88)
I have no idea how S.A. is doing or will do in the future (though I of course hope the magazine prospers). I do know that in the 1940's, S.A. was a very poor journal, consisting mostly of industry press releases. About 1948, however, there was a rebirth. The quality and quantity of articles improved greatly. I only know of this retrospectively, having just entered the first grade myself in 1948. Perhaps someone with a longer memory could enlighten us with the details. In any event, maybe S.A. is destined to have these cycles of good and bad times. Maybe it is too soon to count this venerable journal out. Bill ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) (03/05/88)
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!russmacleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) (03/08/88)
>My< complaint about SA, besides its skinny size, is that in the last year
or two it has been running articles with blatantly leftist political
agendas. Or so it looks to me. The technical level is also lower.
I emphatically disagree with the poster who suggests that SA is an institution
and deserves support no matter what it does. Right now it's in a limbo
between _Nature_ and the Sagans of "gee-whiz, ain't reality weird!" glossys.
I'll take _Nature_ and hang the rest.