 | | Re: Lego Hackers —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | (...) It's perfectly understandable when you consider the intended audience -- mainly drooling misogynist marketing-dregree droids in terminally uncomfortable business suits who buy the magazines to look at the pretty artwork cluttered by all those (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego Hackers —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Them's fighting words, Sproat. Forbes is in my top five mag list and the one I will snatch out of the hands of flight attendents when I get on airplanes. Now if you want to slam Fortune, fine. It's infected with the Time Warner reality (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | "Financial news" magazines (Was: Lego Hackers) —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | (...) Also a troll, but IMO not a vain troll. (...) Agreed. Sorry for cluttering up .general (...) Also Forbes, also WSJ. Any magazine I've read claiming to report financial news has proven to be little more than a self-promoting millionaire's club (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Financial news" magazines (Was: Lego Hackers) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Neither of these are TW pubs. I rather like them as they don't do the standard Time Warner, "hey government intervention isn't so bad after all" spinthink the way Fortune does. (...) I read all three of these, even Fortune, and get a lot out (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
