"WConner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ByVgh.2336$aD6.1355@trndny02...
>> Can you give us "non popular science readers" a hint?
>
> As a long time reader of Popular Science I find it extremely unfortunate
> that they have interjected politics into the magazine. Only intended to
> call peoples attention to it who are subscribers, please do not take up
> space here with discussion.
>
> Walt Conner
>
>
>+
BOY! What an excellent example of, Do as I Say not as I DO.
Can you give us "non popular scinece readers" a hint?
On Dec 16, 8:06 am, "WConner" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Popular Science magazine readers may want to check out "From the Editor" in
> January 2007 issue.
>
> Walt Conner
I heard though the grapevine that the editor expresses his views on
Bush, Congress, and stem cell research. I don't know what those views
are. So don't rush out to find the magazine unless this is a topic that
pulls your chain.
On Dec 16, 8:06 am, "WConner" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Popular Science magazine readers may want to check out "From the Editor" in
> January 2007 issue.
>
> Walt Conner
> Can you give us "non popular science readers" a hint?
As a long time reader of Popular Science I find it extremely unfortunate
that they have interjected politics into the magazine. Only intended to call
peoples attention to it who are subscribers, please do not take up space
here with discussion.
Walt Conner
"WConner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:q3Tgh.1676$JL5.937@trndny03...
> Popular Science magazine readers may want to check out "From the Editor"
> in January 2007 issue.
>
> Walt Conner
>
So he has no morals, so what?
Never Enough Money wrote:
> Can you give us "non popular scinece readers" a hint?
>
> On Dec 16, 8:06 am, "WConner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Popular Science magazine readers may want to check out "From the Editor" in
>>January 2007 issue.
>>
>>Walt Conner
>
>
I would not want to start a thread regarding some very personal feelings
regarding what the editor said. This NG does not deserve to be
sidetracked on other than wood related subjects.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:56:01 GMT, "WConner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Can you give us "non popular science readers" a hint?
>
>As a long time reader of Popular Science I find it extremely unfortunate
>that they have interjected politics into the magazine. Only intended to call
>peoples attention to it who are subscribers, please do not take up space
>here with discussion.
>
>Walt Conner
>
That has *got* to one of the biggest examples of convoluted thinking I
have ever read. First, you come on with an initial posting to r.ww asking
if anybody has seen an editorial in PS, then, when queried by those of us
who don't subscribe regarding what exactly you were concerned about, you
respond with "it's off topic, I don't want to discuss it in this forum".
It's not like this forum has not had occasional bouts of off-topic
postings and "General Store" discussions. This is a hobby group, sometimes
people just chew the fat when discussing hobbies as well as specifically
addressing that topic. You could have defused any questions and further
issues by simply stating that the editors at PS had decided to post
political discussion in their magazine and indicated what you found
objectionable. We (those who don't subscribe) still don't know what
direction the editorial was slanted, but since Leon responded regarding
sending a letter, I have a pretty good guess. Instead you build up this
big tease, then tell us to forget it.
So, do you right teaser ads for Victoria's Secret or similar merchants in
your real life? [Hey ya'll, look at this! You pervert -- how dare you
stare!]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+