Re: MIT wireless energy transfer 'breakthrough' now vaunted by Science News ... (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:41:40 -0500
From: Scott Stephens <radon86@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MIT wireless energy transfer 'breakthrough' now vaunted by 
    Science News ... (fwd)

Tesla list wrote:
> From: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
>> trying to figure out how to write a scathing letter in polite, objective terms.  Haven't gotten there yet
> I am in exactly the same position.  Every time I start revising, I 
> get frustrated because it's just *so* lame.
>   
What's worth doing or saying is worth doing badly, rather than not doing
at all. I suspect they won't read over a couple sentences to reach your
brilliant climactic theses, but rather seek to get a general impression.
Moreover, probably having a corrupt interest in promoting the
government-academia welfare-for-'scientists', they won't give a damn
whatever you say.

"Dear Sirs,

I hate to see politics corrupt your magazine's reputation and reporting
on hard science, the way other fields in climate and environment,
energy, evolution, stem-cell et. have become political. Your choice to
publish personalities or institutions rather than subject merit ruins
your magazine's objectivity and credibility.

Sincere regards"

There, that's better than nothing. Get to the point - the carrot and
stick; they publish junk, you won't take them seriously or pay for it.

Scott