When Dewdney took over Douglas Hofstadter's Scientific American column, he had some pretty big shoes to fill. But he did a marvellous job, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading his Computer Recreations every month. They were original and inspiring. With 200 percent of nothing, Dewdney is clearly scraping the barrel. When I read it, I thought it was OK, although I found the style of writing pretty bad. Still, there was enough enjoyable material there. However, I recently read John Allen Paulos' "Innumeracy", and that was a real shocker. Paulos' book is *so* much better than Dewdney's, that it is embarrasing the latter one. Not only that, but comparing the two books, it is evident that Dewdney leaned heavily on "Innumeracy". Yes, he *does* reference the book, but many, many of his examples are taken straight from it. Worse even, he writes the examples in his own words, which makes it immediately clear that he is not even close to the perfect style of writing Paulos displays. After having read "200 Percent of Nothing", I gave it a 7, but after reading "Innumeracy" (which I rate at 10), Dewdney's feeble attempt devaluates to a 4. "200 Percent of Nothing" is 50 Percent Paulos and 150 Percent hot air.