> I think I can see why it eventually got passed on by S&T. The problem
> is that in subject and tone its a "Focal Point" essay, but it looks
> like its about two to three times longer than the usual entry. Still,
> they should have given Mark a chance to edit it. Their loss.
That's very perceptive. It is precisely what I was told by S&T. I really
don't mind that it didn't run, it was the manner in which they acted that
left a bad taste in my mouth. Mimi was waiting many months, looking
forward to it, but not a word that they (S&T) had changed their mind.
And, if they had changed their mind and at that point suggested editing it
from 1800 words to about 800 for Focal Point, I'd have seen if it could be
done and still maintain the flavor and content. They just dropped the
ball, in my opinion, in an unprofessional manner. After I was obviously
annoyed with them, they then suggested possibly editing it for
consideration in Focal Point.
FWIW, this is not the first "screw-up" that S&T has made with me. I know
others on this list have also found them "amatuers" when it comes to doing
things the right way.
I sent Messier Monster to Tom Clark's Amateur Astronomy, and to Astronomy
Magazine (print and deep sky on-line section) for consideration.
Ray's page, IMO, is really a great place to have it "published."
Mark Wagner
mgw@No-Spam-intl.com