ALT.SF4M

  Letter in _New York Times_

   • s******j@p*******.**o.com
     30/12/1994 22:56:43 UTC

     About a week ago, the _New York Times_ ran a really dumb, new-agey

     article about how, since the age of the universe has been revised

     downwards, the Earth and life on it must also be young, so we should

     BE HAPPY because we are in a new FRESH universe, not an old

     oppressive one. It really ticked me off, so I wrote a letter

     pointing out that a young universe would actually be a bleak and

     empty place (not enough heavy elements to form worlds, life, etc.).

     Anyways, I got a call this afternoon from the NYT; they're going to

     pub the letter! It should be on the op-ed pages sometime this

     weekend or Monday.

     HAPPY NEW YEAR!

     Stefan

       • b*****8@a*****.*****x.net
         31/12/1994 16:12:012 UTC

         In article <3e2oab$***@p*******.**o.com>,

         Stefan E. Jones wrote:

         >About a week ago, the _New York Times_ ran a really dumb, new-agey

         >article about how, since the age of the universe has been revised

         >downwards, the Earth and life on it must also be young, so we
         should

         >BE HAPPY because we are in a new FRESH universe, not an old

         >oppressive one. It really ticked me off, so I wrote a letter

         >pointing out that a young universe would actually be a bleak and

         >empty place (not enough heavy elements to form worlds, life, etc.).

         >Anyways, I got a call this afternoon from the NYT; they're going to

         >pub the letter! It should be on the op-ed pages sometime this

         >weekend or Monday.

         So, Stefan, will you be posting the text of your letter here? (Isn't

         this your SECOND letter in the NYTimes? If you're not careful, thye

         could make you a columnist or smething.)

         --

         -Perrianne Lurie

         "Pirates of Fenzance"

         Baltimore in 1998 Worldcon Bid

         b**********8@a*****.*****x.net

            • j******s@l*****.**.******b.edu
              03/01/1995 01:37:18 UTC

              Baltimore in 98 (b*****8@a*****.*****x.net) wrote:

              : In article <3e2oab$***@p*******.**o.com>,

              : Stefan E. Jones wrote:

              : >About a week ago, the _New York Times_ ran a really dumb,
              new-agey

              : >article about how, since the age of the universe has been
              revised

              : >downwards, the Earth and life on it must also be young, so
              we should

              : >BE HAPPY because we are in a new FRESH universe, not an old

              : >oppressive one. It really ticked me off, so I wrote a letter

              Wait... they did WHAT to the age? How old is the universe this
              time?

              Congrats on your publication Stefan.

              --

              ______________________________________________________________________________

              Joe Gergis | Languages: Modula III, C, C++, Assembly, Arabic,
              M.E.

              "Amon Ra" | Platforms: DOS, Windows 3.1 & NT, UNIX, X, C64,
              VIC-20

              j******s@i*.******b.edu | Hobbies: RPG's, reading SF, writing
              electronic music

              ______________________________________________________________________________

              "There can be only one Ra."

              ______________________________________________________________________________

       • s******j@p*******.**o.com
         02/01/1995 21:52:44 UTC

         Joe / Ra:

         New redshift readings from Hubble could indicate an age of 8 - 12
         billion

         years, much lower than the previous estimate of 16 billion.

         The boob who wrote the Xmas-eve editorial thought this made the
         EARTH

         similarly younger, and that we were "close to the dawn of time" and

         thus should be full of joy and cheer and high hopes for the future.

         Anyway, the letter appeared Sunday, 1/1/95, in the "week in Review"

         section. One typo, but nothing disasterous.

         Perrianne:

         Actually, this would be number three. But the first in the main

         letter's page.

         Stefan