Technical writing in 1974 was a lot more poetic than it is now. From F. Downton’s discussion of Stone’s “Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions”:

A current nine-day wonder in the press concerns the exploits of a Mr. Uri Geller who appears to be able to bend metal objects without touching them; Professor Stone seems to be attempting to bend statistics without touching them. My attitude to both of these phenomena is one of open-minded scepticism; I do not believe in either of these prestigious activities, on the other hand they both deserve serious scientific examination.

Also enjoyable is Stone’s extended analogy:

[I]t is reasonable to enquire how one arrives at a prescription in any particular problem. A tentative answer is that, like a doctor with his patient, the statistician with his client must write his prescription only after careful consideration of the reasonable choices… Just as the doctor should be prepared for side-effects, so the statistician should monitor and check the execution of the prescription for any unexpected complications… A prescription is neither true nor false; it is better to say that, in a broad sense, it either succeeds or fails.

You just don’t see this kind of writing very often in current Statistics writing.