 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
> Also unless bait is a modifier as to the type of
> flame that should be one word.
Fish bait, animal bait, flame bait.
*g'night*
--
Lurking Lance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> writes:
> Was that the one about shattering baseball bats in college games?
No, no. It was the quiz one:
<quote>
And if you borrowed the issue from your dentist's office as part of an
effort to appear erudite, just remember to call it Scinteific American,
not America. "Oh I've been reading Scientific America for years" is
probably the second most common thing a member of the staff hears, the
firste beeing, "Jeez, I would have thought a magizine editor could afford a
nicer apartment".
</quote>
--
Sigmund Kyrre Aas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
> I am settled but about 1991 it was ready to go
> under. It then started to add a human interest angle
> and has never been the same since. IOW: I canceled and
> have rarely bothered with its "popular science" angle
> since then.
Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
before Disney took over?
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <389F4E85.7F3E314F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
> Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
> before Disney took over?
I read it, but I didn't get it before Disney, so I can't really say. I
rate it lower than Scientific American, but higher than Popular
Science(which I no longer get).
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> In article <389F4E85.7F3E314F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
> <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>
> > Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
> > before Disney took over?
>
> I read it, but I didn't get it before Disney, so I can't really say. I
> rate it lower than Scientific American, but higher than Popular
> Science(which I no longer get).
I love SciAm but my dad refuses to subscribe. And our subscription to
Discover was never renewed.
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-422E1A.18314607022000@news.povray.org...
> In article <389F4E85.7F3E314F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
> <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>
> > Anyone else here read Discover? Anyone else here think it was better
> > before Disney took over?
>
> I read it, but I didn't get it before Disney, so I can't really say. I
> rate it lower than Scientific American, but higher than Popular
> Science(which I no longer get).
>
Didn't realise PS was still going. As a kid in 40's n 50's couldn't wait for my dad's
copy
together with Pop Mechanics to arrive.
Alf
http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
