Mill.
First of all, I'm not taking you the wrong way. I will, however, respond to your post.
I was simply reporting on what another 'source' had reported. In effect, I'm just relaying what I've seen/heard for the benefit of others.
My initial post never stated the aforementioned article was fact or fiction. Have a closer look at the second sentence in what was only a 2-sentence post!!! It was clearly a thread started in the interests of seeking a more definitive statement....in the absence of anything more concrete.
S&S could have done itself a big favour and communciated more effectively its state of play... It has a website, after all, and other means available to 'get the word out'....and many readers and subscribers who, for want of a better word, 'deserve' some type of updated explanation.
I was putting the question out there on behalf of many people, I am sure, who've been asking the same question.
If it appears as peddling gossip, that was not my intention. However, people have a right to ask questions and unfortunately it is in their nature to begin to make assumptions in the absence of any answers. And when one reads an article of that type by a source such as Bintel, one would assume they're founding their 'gossip' on something.
I'm not sure what you would define the right way to start a thread when it simply comes to asking what's going on? I thought that was all I did?
The first respondent to this thread was Mike...who is the chief mod of this site....who didn't have a problem with it....
Greg Bryant's (justified) response was to someone else's response to someone lumping AS&T in with S&S in terms of publication reliability and subscription, and to give folks a heads-up on AS&T's upcoming (on time) publication schedule.
I'm not sure why someone would respond that they wouldn't be subscribing to either mag based on S&S's track record....I can't take responsibility for the way people respond.
cheers....and no offence taken....and nothing taken the wrong way
