On Apr 28, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Or, in the Washington Times today...
You are supposed to know that the Washington Times reports on the news
of
a fantasy Universe parallel to our own. I guess as the years go by it
gets harder to remember that the paper was established by and c
On 4/29/07, Paul Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I don't think much
of Christian Science - apologies in advance - but
people generally don't doubt CSM's credibiility, and you
can make the same argument about WSJ or the Economist
on political lines).
This is an excellent point. Unfortunate
The fact that Fox channels GOP talking points like
Madame effing Blavatsky is disheartening. I would
find that obnoxious in a "liberal" or "mainstream"
paper.
Any ideological tendency might be worth
hearing if the source shows some independent
thought and willingness to look at evidence. What
A classic mistake is made here.
Viewership does not equal believe/and or trust. Viewership is simply
that viewership. I watch CBS news (Katie Couirc) Simply because it
is the main local channel we get local news on. If it were an
ABC/NBC station I would watch it more for news. I not believ
Wadda ya mean Tom? Didn't the American Spectator and the Weekly Standard
agree with the Washington times? That's 3 of 'em. Their thinking must be
mainstream! And then there's all those think tanksThey must be
right...errr, correct.
Tom Piwowar wrote:
Or, in the Washington Times today.
On 4/28/07, mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Weren't you supposed to change the topic to 'slam newspaper cause it
doesn't
agree with my idealogical bias' ?
That may well be true, but do you know anyone that feels they can trust the
reporting of Washington Times, or who believes that Fox News i
Yeah it's everyone *else* that's always wrong...I've been on the list long
enough to expect this from you.
I do live in that fantasy world where at some point you step from your
fantasy land, but that is a lot to expect.
Mike
On 4/28/07, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Weren't you sup
>Weren't you supposed to change the topic to 'slam newspaper cause it doesn't
>agree with my idealogical bias' ?
If you write that you are simply uninformed about the history and
ownership of this newspaper or you have already emigrated to fantasyland.
**
Weren't you supposed to change the topic to 'slam newspaper cause it doesn't
agree with my idealogical bias' ?
Mike
On 4/28/07, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or, in the Washington Times today...
You are supposed to know that the Washington Times reports on the news of
a fantasy Univ
>Or, in the Washington Times today...
You are supposed to know that the Washington Times reports on the news of
a fantasy Universe parallel to our own. I guess as the years go by it
gets harder to remember that the paper was established by and continues
to be owned by the Rev. Moon to promote a
LA Times staff reporters say the #1 suspect is "Nosema ceranae" a fungus
parasite.
That's good. I just renewed my cell phone for another year. As a renewal
I got an even better deal. $50 for the year.
* ==> QUICK LIST-COM
30 years ago my brother and a few of his friends were "challenged" by
a bunch of country boys one night. (He was hanging out with a bunch
of long hairs as he called it.) So they went out to meet the country
boys on a dark road. (My brothers friends were not the brightest
bulbs in the closet)
Was it South Park where they spoofed an Evening News
ad, "Which major soft drink might be lethal? We'll tell you at 11:00!"
Could have been the Simpsons.
Chris Dunford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
attention and use it as a come on, while the full story might say something
opposite.>
The classic e
In the army, huh? Are you sure he didn't have the concussion?
;->
"Rev. Stewart Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 30 years ago my brother and
a few of his friends were "challenged" by
a bunch of country boys one night. (He was hanging out with a bunch
of long hairs as he called it.) So
On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:
The classic example of this was an 11 o'clock news teaser I saw on one
of the Baltimore TV
stations a few years ago: "Is there snow in our future? Details at
11." The answer turned
out to be "no".
Or, in the Washington Times today, front p
On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
What most reporting does is look for the hook or the grab line that
will grab every ones attention and use it as a come on, while the full
story might say something opposite.
The majors (print and broadcast) tend to do a little better
The classic example of this was an 11 o'clock news teaser I saw on one of the
Baltimore TV
stations a few years ago: "Is there snow in our future? Details at 11." The
answer turned
out to be "no".
(I also love that they call these blatant promos "news updates".)
The press has a real problem distinguishing pseudo science from real
science and rarely has anyone trained in science reporting on science.
The same can be said of computer reporting (Except in specialized
magazines) Religion and a host of other specialties.
What most reporting does is look f
On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Constance Warner wrote:
Maybe we won't have to lose our cellphones after all to save the crops.
Just as well-I can imagine the HUGE protests if businesses (and
teenagers) were asked to give up their precious cellphones and
blackberries to save a BUG. The political b
In the news: more on colony collapse syndrome. In Tuesday's New York
Times science section, there was a long article on disappearing bees and
the research to find the causes. The scientists quoted in the article
seemed to think that the causes for the syndrome were probably
insecticides or pathog
20 matches
Mail list logo
