a lot of the articles written in JAMA (I always double-take on this, as it’s the same acronym as Journal of Amer Med Assn) are of a pseudo-intellectual sort that wouldn’t pass muster in the majority of academic peer reviewed socio/political/historical journals that follow similar formats; there are occasionally articles of a clearly higher academic caliber, but many just read like IKF articles printed on thicker paper; but then again, most academic journals are geared towards their particular niche, not the general public; and you don’t find most academic journals on the magazine shelf at Borders; to me, this is the reason JAMA doesn’t cut it: it tries to ride the fence, and subsequently fails as a true academic publication, but is too egg-headed and $$$ for the typical IKF / BB magazine reader…
[QUOTE=SPJ;1080953]1. in terms of size of a printed book or journal
I personally prefer pocket size. I may bring it anywhere and read it when I have time.
desk size or table size meaning you need a desk or a table to put the book down and read it.
the quality of the paper also counts
I have some books from 1980’s. they are still good.
but paper does age or undergoes oxidation
I have some books from 1990s, turned yellow already. they are printed on thinner papers.
:)[/QUOTE]
The worst paper in books are pages made of newsprint paper, like most mid-sized paperback novels. Of course, the best being glossy; that will last and not likely turn yellow over time. Then the only concern is the glue in the binding.
I personally prefer an actual book to just reading online. Like Syn 7, I also don’t feel too great if I read too much online. I can relax and get comfortable with a book, whereas it’s not really possible with a computer. Plus, I’m not getting ‘irradiated’ reading a paper book. Each method has its pros and cons.
[QUOTE=Jimbo;1081033]The worst paper in books are pages made of newsprint paper, like most mid-sized paperback novels. Of course, the best being glossy; that will last and not likely turn yellow over time. Then the only concern is the glue in the binding.
I personally prefer an actual book to just reading online. Like Syn 7, I also don’t feel too great if I read too much online. I can relax and get comfortable with a book, whereas it’s not really possible with a computer. Plus, I’m not getting ‘irradiated’ reading a paper book. Each method has its pros and cons.[/QUOTE]
yes the binding or back of a book would fail over time.
in old china, people actually used cotton threads to stitch the pages together.
we had to let books soak under the sun to kill molds etc by solar radiation
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1080865]
Perhaps I shouldn’t compare martial arts publishers to Nazis, but you get the idea. Today’s newsstand is like a ninja Gurhka.
[/QUOTE]
Internet shenanigans! How’re we gonna call you a nazi on page two when you called yourself a nazi in the first post?
[QUOTE=GeneChing;1080865]My grandfather fought alongside the Gurhkas in WWII. He told me they would sneak out every night to cut up Nazis in their foxholes. The Germans would station two men in a foxhole. A Gurhka would kill one, slicing his throat from ear to ear, and then cut off one of the ears to take back as a trophy. Every night, they would come back with a few ears. They would leave the other soldier alive, for the psychological damage.
As a fellow print publisher of martial arts magazines, it’s a lot like that. IKF and JAMA are my fellow soldiers, manning our foxhole. At some point in the night, I look over to see that they are cut dead, sliced ear to missing ear. As if I’m not psychologically damaged enough already.
Perhaps I shouldn’t compare martial arts publishers to Nazis, but you get the idea. Today’s newsstand is like a ninja Gurhka.
For the record, I have been unable to validate that JAMA’s distributor has gone bankrupt so far. Still checking.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SPJ;1081070]psychological warfare or tactics
the sniper would shoot hand, leg, shoulder–
and leave the wounded soldier alive to attract comrades to rescue
then snipe the rescueing men.
shoot hand first, so that he can not use the gun again
shoot leg next, so that he can not walk away
shoot shoulder, so that he can not crawl–
:eek:[/QUOTE]
I guess mafiosi or gangs are just amateurs and wude is no longer in the books. Cave man instinct is coming back and humans still the same predator animal as in old time an civilization is about greed, violence and destruction. How pathetic.
I guess mafiosi or gangs are just amateurs and wude is no longer in the books. Cave man instinct is coming back and humans still the same predator animal as in old time an civilization is about greed, violence and destruction. How pathetic.
I have great respect for JAMA. They were the only martial arts magazine to ever reject an article I submitted. The only one EVER. I respect that.
I wrote a piece on xiaohongquan and the Shaolin Wushuguan for them back in the mid 90s. Keep in mind, I’m a Ph.D. dropout, so I can write in APA format (in fact it took me years to kick that habit so I could write for popular magazines). As it was my first attempt to break into JAMA, I packed the article way to tightly. They gave me a cordial rejection letter and were spot on with their critique. I later diced up the article into about half a dozen pieces, which I published in other magazines.
I respect JAMA’s mission to elevate martial arts. I think it is fascinating that the martial arts community could support the effort. Academic and scholarly journals are not distributed on the newsstands. JAMA is the only exception, which is one of the reasons why its standing as an academic journal is brought into question above. I think what is of more interest here is that the martial arts community could even produce such a publication. You don’t see that in any other field. JAMA is very unique.
