it's something to get angry about though
and that is irresistable.

I find it annoying the other way too. I read the new civil engineer now and then, and recently there have been letters from people on the climate change subject. Regardless of what a doubter of AGW will say in their letter, the following week someone will have rabidly written in demanding that the journal no longer print letters from deniers.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:01, 1 reply, 17 years ago)

It's a tricky one for editors.
No serious scientist will deny the possibility that the science is wrong; on the other hand, none will deny that the picture as we understand it is overwelmingly in favour of AGW hypotheses as correct.

At the same time, not every voice on matters of scientific importance is an important voice. What you do with the cranks is a tricky one for editors, though - and unless we start peer-reviewing letters, I guess that they're simply going to have to be printed...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:06, Reply)

it's more of a "have your say" for engineers than it is a place for scientific debate.

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:22, Reply)