One born every minute!
I've subscribed to New Scientist for years, but I notice recently that it comes with more and more postal inclusions. Some of them are charity appeals and I don't object to those, but nowadays you get dubious ads as well. I have just this minute opened an ad from a (purported) financial advisor, which contained the following bait:
Quote:
What have I ever done to be taken for this kind of fool! |
The first thing I ever do with magazines these days is to take hold by the staple edge and shake all the rubbish out. That goes straight in the recycling bin.
However, I might have to rethink that. I'm depriving myself of an opportunity to give everyone here at LQ a good laugh (or at least a wry grin). |
I gave up on New Scientist some years ago when it turned too political for my liking. Not to say I don't respect it but I found the politics was watering down the science and technology. I did, a few months ago, subscribe to Scientific American (we used to call it Oxymoron Magazine, in good humour, I assure everyone) and, while I have yet to actually read much I tend to prefer the style nowadays.
Sorry about that, but it's always good to see another NS reader despite the above. :) I do worry, generally, about the advertisers that companies allow into their space -- be that a Flash ad on the website or a printed advert for some con artist in their physical pages. Have to admit I like posts by hazel as she reminds me of my mother and how everything I know about how to keep safe on computers is based upon her telling me how to keep safe generally. |
Remember that such inclusions are sources of revenue to the publication. I know they are annoying, but, considering the difficulties facing print media these days, I am quite willing to tolerate them in the publications to which I subscribe.
Heck, my local newspaper, which tries very hard to do a good job, just went through another force reduction. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM. |