Hi [again on this one] Dag,
My prior comments were with respect to "Scientific American" as it
existed back when NDT was being developed [1970s - what I refer to as
"SA'" "big-page days"]. It was, then, superbly-done - gifted
Since then, it's been transferred to different folks, and it's just
another 'popular science' thing - totally unsuitable for any
discussion of NDT's stuff, I agree.
But, when I prepared the package for them, the then existing practice
at "SA" would have been an excellent way to graphically communicate
the essence of the "special topological homeomorphism of central
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
message news:b81en8$opr$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
| KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| > I understand the 'economics' of publishing. But I also understand
| > that there's earth-shaking stuff in AoK that's flat out easy to
| > comprehend, and because it's so, it's easy for me to see that
| > stuff is not being dealt with Forthrightly.
|| No. It may be easy for you, not for us others.
|| > To my knowledge, AoK has never been formally reviewed. When I
| > out to "Scientific American", and it was back in my hands in
| > days, that just 'broke' me with respect to seeking further
| > publication.
|| Scientific American is a quite atypical forum. I am not surprised.