IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

'Scientific American' submission CLARIFICATION

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sat Apr 26 23:01:55 EST 2003


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
Illustrators.

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
nervous systems".

ken

--
"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
AoK's
| > 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
sent it
| > out to "Scientific American", and it was back in my hands in
three
| > days, that just 'broke' me with respect to seeking further
| > publication.
|
| Scientific American is a quite atypical forum. I am not surprised.
|
| Dag





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net