[axioma]

first, i think its fair to say that as a mod of the magazine forum, you are not going to be in a rush to agree with any negative comments that are raised about the magazine. your unthought-out first reply might have annoyed me a bit, hense my response, but no big deal.

anyway onto the actual topic...

lets say even if the situation exists as you put it, ie that at the moment we have x amount of quality articles, and y ammount of not so great ones. you claim that surely a magazine with x+y articles is better than a magazine with just x. well i dont agree with this at all, and i think you should reconsider that point.

but rather, i dont even agree that the situation is how you have it. it cannot nessesarilly be the case that the top however many articles make it in each month, if there exists some quota to be filled of humor/fluff/nonstrategy topics each month. ed (correct me if im wrong) has more or less indirectly implied that there is some unofficial quota.

he has also implied that some potentially good articles have not made it in because of not having time/resourses to edit them. perhaps the time he spends looking through houmor articles etc could be better used in editing these potentially good strategy articles. if you cut the number of articles down by half say you could have $500 to pay an editor to do this for you if you wanted.

bascially my point is that i think many people would prefer a sleaker, higher quality product to the product we currently have.

i actually dont both reading past the first paragraph of many of the articles these days, so perhaps i have no right to these opinions anyway. in any case im not sure why ive taken the time to type all this out because the time spent is certainly not proportional to my interest in the magazine. most people wont read this anyay.