It's a pity, but I think it's a fact.
I find your tale of learning English with SciAm as an aid very touching.
I'm glad it was better back then! :)
MMB
At 01:05 PM 2/25/98 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Apropos the question that came up about the credibility of New
>Scientist, I have begun to worry about Scientific American. I have
>read it for as long as I have been able to read texts in english
>(actually longer, I learnt some of my english from trying to read my
>father's copies as a child), but recently I have begun to feel there
>is a downward trend in quality. The new, glossier format with larger
>and more colorful pictures is just one sign. Then there were the
>infamous article about nanotechnology, and now history seems to be
>repeating. Apparently the pro and con articles on the merits of animal
>use in biomedical research were judged on different criteria (in favor
>of the con side), allowing some unsubstantiated claims with no
>opportunity for the opponents to respond. See
>http://biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/member/1998/25/people/op_ed.htm for
>their response, published in HMS Beagle.
>
>Are there any others who are disturbed by the trend in Scientific
>American? Are we loosing one of the in the past best popular
>scientific journals to a mere journal of opinion?
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
>asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
>GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
>
>
"The highest love [is] uniquely human,
the product of compassion and liberty;
not one at the expense of the other."
-- L. A. Chu and M. M. Butler
(RU a bot? If not, be advised *s are flagged as 'net address ERRORS;
MY address is thus munged. Kindly hyphenate. "Go team, beat SP*M.")