From: krogers@javelin.sim.es.com (K. Rogers)
Subject: Re: [F] Sorry about "my" article in AFM
Reply-To: krogers@javelin.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:19:18 GMT

mattk@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (matthew.kaufman) writes:

>In article <1992Jul25.165220.15877@javelin.sim.es.com> krogers@javelin.sim.es.com writes:
>>formula.  AFM is pretty watered down when it comes to real life
>>technical info; that's why I still like FAMA best - you occasionally
>>get an article which doesn't pull any punches on the science - real
>>numbers and theory, not just predigested concepts.
>
>Yeah, like the time they had the article on calculating your filter's
>flow rate in gph - measure the flow for 1 minute and multiply by 24!
>
>If FAMA had any visible editing at all it'd probably be a good
>magazine. 

Matt, you missed the part in my posting that said _occasionally_.  All
of the rags have wildly and laughably inaccurate statements in every
issue, but I find FAMA doesn't edit the articles at all or only
lightly.  Sure, you get grammatical and spelling errors with it but
which would you rather, bad grammar and style or missing info from
people who know what they're talking about (like George and Karla)?  I
can think of several chemical oriented articles I saw in FAMA that
were a real help to me which would have never appeared in AFM.

>I guess I buy it for ads and laughs - Emran Pishvai and
>better fishkeeping through egregious use of chemicals, Swimming around
>with Dingbat, etc. etc.

The ads in FAMA are still the best.  As for the absurd columns... you
are more easily amused than I am I guess.  I read a few paragraphs the
ones you mentioned in one issue before I quit forever.  What a vacuous
waste of paper.  AFM wins has some really good columns on cichlids
(what do you expect if you have Loiselle?), catfish and ponds.  FAMA
wins hands down in the reef area though with Sprung.

Humm, it just occurs to me that I may like FAMA better because it has
more of a marine bent than AFM or TFH.  I've gotten way more useful
info for my reef tank from FAMA than AFM.  I don't subscribe to TFH,
I've yet to see anything useful in any of the half-dozen issues I've
bought from pet shops just to try it out.

>I agree AFM is overedited and their bogus
>(putting it politely) metric/US conversions are laughable, especially
>when they miss one. They really roached George's article, though.
>Still, they do run good things like Wayne Leibel's discussion of South
>American cichlids (maybe not the best written set of articles, but
>lots of good information on the latest cichlid nomenclature, which is
>hard to find.)

I agree that some of their runs are fine - though they string them out
too long.  I mean, what are we up to on the SA cichlids now - part 9?
I've been following Tullock's reef articles - up to part 8, I think,
and you could have had all the same stuff and more in his $15 book.

>For my $$, you'll get the best info from the hobbyist groups (AKA and ACA
>publications, the AKA ones are occasionally exceptional, like the recent
>issue on Nothobranchius,) and for 'how to' info this forum is by far the
>best you'll find 

No question about this.

>- it's free, there're (hopefully) no businesses out there
>with an axe to grind, and the people are generally friendly (unless we
>try to spawn another newsgroup or discuss the 'Dupla-way'.) Whatever
>did happen to Kurt Wiedenhofer, anyway?

Or when the ecology flame wars of marine tanks show up.  Whatever
happened to Eliot Porter, anyway?  Did he sign on as Grand Inquisitor
somewhere without Net access?  He sure had all the necessary self
righteousness and violence for the job.
-- 
Keith Rogers
krogers@javelin.sim.es.com