So, using your logic, when presenting conceptual or introductory material it is OK to be inaccurate....

You see, when people say they write on a conceptual level, it is double-speak for "Well, I have read about this stuff, but I have never actually used it".

What separates novices from conceptual people. The novice is on page 1, the conceptual person is on page 2...< s >...

Folks don't need concept articles. They need articles that shows them how to use this stuff. If people want theory, there are a plethora of books on the market, few of which, show folks how to use this stuff. That is what techncial magazines are for.


>-snip-
>>>Forget for a moment that I may be pissing somebody off. Look at Miriam's article and look at my comments. Ask yourself who in the hell is editing the work at Advisor? This crap has been going on for too many months. And, like you, most people beleive that FPA has to step it up a few notches.
>>
>
>FWIW, I've always considered that this particular column (M.Liskin's) treats most topics on a concept level, i.e. introduction-type material.
>
>Maybe that's why it's there? Anybody?