 | | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel (along with its siblings) is very close to the worst source of science information currently available to the mainstream public. That channel has countless programs that present such "frontiers of science" (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) [snip] (...) Really? I don't get TV, but I'd been under the impression that these channels had some pretty good stuff even if it was _Popular Science_ caliber rather than _Nature_ caliber. What you're describing sounds more like _Omni_. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 1-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Upon further reflection (and watching) I can say that certain mainstream "nature" type programs aren't bad, especially the stuff on deep-sea exploration. Some of the military and "justice files" stuff might be good, too, but I can't speak with (...) (23 years ago, 1-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
