Wrote to new scientist editor jeremy webb 17/12/04 re Paul davies saying: "Giving front page (NS 11 Dec Paul Davies) to intelligent design (Stealth Creationists as Stenger calls them) is going a bit far, especially when the more radical of them in the Bush administration now mandate the sale of creationist literature in US National Park shops." "Would you consider an opposing article jointly authored perhaps by Stenger, James Randi or others (Dawkins or even Stephen Rose spring to mind)? If so how long would you want it to be and what guidelines would you want to give?" I'd lined it up already with Randi. Webb said no.

Elsevier also publish some bad translations. eg http://turnersyndrome.researchtoday.net/archive/6/3/454.htm And don't they publish New Scientist from whom I unsubscribed when they published the jesuit intelligent design fruitcake Paul Davies on the front page and refused right of reply from James Randi and others.

Hopefully we might one day move towards the revolutionary notion of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Yes I know it's terribly problematic determining the parameters, but if the principle was accepted we'd be a lot further ahead.

"desire of the particle physicists to have a flat spacetime at high enough energies, no matter what, seems, well, quaint." not being a mathematician or physicist, hope you can explain this to me