Re: S & T uses low end paper

I struggle with renewing S&T every year. The reviews are silly---ever seen
a bad review? You can read everything of value in the mag in about an
hour...it's a bit over priced too. But, the alternatives aren't any
better....

Doink

"David Nakamoto" <res07oeg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XOtGe.51$DJ5.13@xxxxxxxxxxx
> If you two think this is not a change to the good, then visit the
> Skypub.org website and lodge a cogent, tactfully written but firmly stated
> reply to the Powers That Be. Complaining here doesn't do any good unless
> those Powers That Be are monitoring this site, and in any case it shows a
> level of real concern to complain directly to the source.
>
> --- Dave
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
> Let inspired figures of light pass by
> The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
> Challenges infinity, and is soon gone
>
> david.nakamoto@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> "Milton Aupperle" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:290720050954438325%spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <A0sGe.2482$7Q1.1335@xxxxxxxx>, astrojoe
>> <astrojoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone else notice the Sept 2005 issue of S & T switched to CHEAP
>>> coated paper. The black backgrounds are horrible. The Gallery in the
>>> rear of the issues has really bad printing results. The great pics by
>>> the amateur photographers are not in any way done justice with this bad
>>> reproduction.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>> I noticed that too and I'm not really pleased.
>>
>> Thankk goodness that Nationl Geographic doens't do that.
>>
>> Milton Aupperle
>> www.outcastsoft.com
>
>


.