HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No more NYT

Mon May 1, 2017, 04:34 PM

No more NYT

unless I can find it somewhere else...
i will skip it

of all the shit we must resist
saving the planet is FIRST on my list

No More
Bret Stephens bought & paid for
so-called opinions


56 replies, 4369 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply No more NYT (Original post)
kpete May 2017 OP
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #1
Skittles May 2017 #3
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #10
Skittles May 2017 #11
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #24
spooky3 May 2017 #26
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #41
Skittles May 2017 #49
WinkyDink May 2017 #14
sharedvalues May 2017 #28
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #39
sharedvalues May 2017 #46
Worktodo May 2017 #47
sharedvalues May 2017 #48
Spider Jerusalem May 2017 #4
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #7
Spider Jerusalem May 2017 #9
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #21
WinkyDink May 2017 #16
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #22
athena May 2017 #31
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #33
athena May 2017 #34
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #36
athena May 2017 #42
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #45
athena May 2017 #19
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #20
athena May 2017 #25
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #27
pnwmom May 2017 #35
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #37
pnwmom May 2017 #40
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #43
pnwmom May 2017 #44
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #50
pnwmom May 2017 #51
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #54
pnwmom May 2017 #55
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #56
pnwmom May 2017 #5
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #23
tenderfoot May 2017 #15
creeksneakers2 May 2017 #38
elleng May 2017 #32
dalton99a May 2017 #2
Cha May 2017 #6
NurseJackie May 2017 #8
hunter May 2017 #12
Caliman73 May 2017 #13
hunter May 2017 #17
Caliman73 May 2017 #18
CrispyQ May 2017 #53
LittleBlue May 2017 #52
elleng May 2017 #29
sharedvalues May 2017 #30

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue May 2, 2017, 12:25 AM

1. Op-Ed pages are supposed to be diverse

The NYT is running its newspaper like a newspaper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #1)

Tue May 2, 2017, 01:14 AM

3. so if someone says the world is flat

they should get equal time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #3)

Tue May 2, 2017, 04:39 PM

10. So what if they do say its flat?

They'd lose the argument. If the Times ran that it would be no reason to quit a great newspaper that does a lot of good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #10)

Tue May 2, 2017, 06:41 PM

11. ridiculous

that kind of garbage belongs on FOX NEWS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #11)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:20 PM

24. Fox News it what it is

because it excludes contrary opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #24)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:44 PM

26. No, it is what it is because hosts lie to present one

perspective. "Alternative facts" mislead viewers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #26)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:38 AM

41. The Supreme Court has protected false speech

The cure for misinformation is correct information. Its not taking away someone's chance to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #24)

Wed May 3, 2017, 01:14 PM

49. YOU DON'T GIVE EQUAL TIME TO CRANKS

IT MAKES YOU LOOK.......LIKE FOX NEWS

Fox News DOES have on the occasional "Democratic" punching bag

saying you like school vouchers is a debatable opinion - denying climate change is right up there with being a holocaust denier - it's just plain insanity

I am done here because WHAT is the point of wasting my time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #10)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:15 PM

14. Yeah, not a great argument. Sorry.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #10)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:47 PM

28. Even op-eds should be fact checked

If nyt wants an anti Trump Republican they should recruit David Frum or McMullin.

Some opinion writers there are very good.
Dowd, Douthat, Stephens all stink. And Friedman is non insightful and uninteresting
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #39)

Wed May 3, 2017, 07:45 AM

46. New Yorker wld have rejected it

New Yorker said an article with this kind of mistruth would never have flown there. See my post above.

And corrections are not fact checking. In fact, editing and factchecking prevent corrections. Editing happens before publication. Corrections happen after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #28)

Wed May 3, 2017, 08:23 AM

47. Finally cancelled my NYT

... after reading this thread. I'm all for alternative viewpoints but not intellectual dishonesty. The goal of the climate deniers has been to muddy the water-- so inclusion is enough to accomplish that goal. It also allows this person to claim that they have been published in the Times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Worktodo (Reply #47)

Wed May 3, 2017, 08:28 AM

48. Good for you

I just linked in a new​ thread an article from Beuter at TNR that does the best job of exploring this NYT question I have seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #1)

Tue May 2, 2017, 01:16 AM

4. This isn't an issue about which there is legitimately a diversity of opinion

that climate change is occuring and is caused by human activity is settled science. In terms of the science involved, it's like the NYT hired an opinion writer who devoted his first columns to "reasons black people are genetically inferior" and then when called on it their response was "but millions of people share his views!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #4)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:34 AM

7. One reason science is as good as it is

is that its never settled. All established beliefs are up for challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #7)

Tue May 2, 2017, 08:53 AM

9. Sorry, but...

at this point the question of whether human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming is as settled as anything in science is. We know what the CO2 levels are, we know what they were before the industrial era because of ice cores, we know what the effect of large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is, we know where all that carbon comes from. Arguing against anthropogenic climate change is like arguing against the idea that the Chicxulub meteor didn't cause the Triassic extinction. You might as well be saying "magnets, how the fuck do they work?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #9)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:15 PM

21. All those things you say are true

But there are many factors for climate and we don't know that another feedback won't intervene. The vast weight of the evidence leads to a conclusion of climate change. We still don't know what we don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #7)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:19 PM

16. "All"? Do you suppose the Heliocentric Theory, e.g., is "up for challenge"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #16)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:17 PM

22. It would be difficult to beat it

But if somebody wants to try I don't think he should be silenced. At one point people who believed the Sun went around the Earth silenced the Heliocentrists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #22)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:51 PM

31. One big difference you're forgetting

is that the people who believed the Sun went around the Earth did not base their beliefs on data and experimentation. They were not scientists. The conclusion that the Earth goes around the Sun was based on painstaking studies of huge amounts of astronomical data. If you believe there is any chance that will ever be questioned, let alone reversed, you might as well believe in fairy tales. Because the idea that any result in science can be disputed or reversed is a fairy tale that may sound good to the non-scientist but is completely false in real life.

Climate scientists, unlike those who claimed the Earth was the center of the Universe, are scientists. They are not basing their conclusions on religion, mythology, politics, or personal opinion. They are basing their conclusions on repeated and independent analyses of huge amounts of data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #31)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:55 PM

33. The analyses

have been subject to debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #33)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:56 PM

34. Do you have children?

If so, that would explain your reluctance to believe the community of climate scientists and to instead believe right-wing politicians and their supporters in the oil industry.

ETA: Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #34)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:26 AM

36. Wow!

You have me dead wrong. I believe in climate change.

Most of my objection here is about the effort to halt debate. As a good lib, I believe debate is a healthy thing.

If there is a reluctance to believe its among those here besides me. If you read the Op-Ed all the fury is about here it doesn't deny climate change exists. Its about the certainty of advocates who want to prevent climate change. Here, an opinion is mischaracterized by those who refuse to allow anything that doesn't 100% follow what they believe. I follow facts and evidence and am always open to new arguments. Those who want to silence are the ones who refuse to believe, or even listen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fbret-stephens&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #36)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:46 AM

42. Do you also believe

we should be debating things like slavery, forced sterilization for the poor, and child labor? Whether gravity is an attractive force? Whether disease is caused by evil spirits? Is there anything that is settled in your mind?

There are some things that don't need to be re-debated and re-tested endlessly. As I have tried to explain several times now, science could not advance if accepted results could not be accepted as foundations upon which to build new results. And, as a former scientist, I believe it is important to leave the science to the scientists. There is a reason it takes a Ph.D. and years of training to do scientific research. Even scientists in other fields, let alone laypersons, are incapable of contributing in a meaningful way. All they can do is waste the scientists' time by forcing them to explain basic things they lack the knowledge and training to understand.

It's sad that we have arrived at a point where no one respects training and credentials any more. Any guy on the street (and yes, I mean "guy", since it's always men who behave in this know-it-all fashion) thinks he can dismiss the findings of tens of thousands of climate scientists. As a physicist, I trust and respect the training, competence, and scientific integrity of the tens of thousands of climate scientists who say that climate change is real and is caused by human activity -- just as when I worked on my Ph.D. thesis, I did not try to re-test and re-establish the centuries of physics -- or the newer results that were only years old -- upon which my own results were built. Trusting science means trusting scientists, and having the humility to accept that a non-scientist is not the equal of a scientist when it comes to critiquing the work of said scientist. If a scientist makes a mistake, it will be another scientist who will discover this -- not some guy on the street, or some opinionated guy with a newspaper column. Science has its own way of weeding out bad results; it's what makes it so powerful. If you cannot trust science to do that, then you don't believe in science or the scientific method, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #42)

Wed May 3, 2017, 01:10 AM

45. The responses to the editorial

include a response from a scientist who also says its not scientists who are claiming certainty.

Scientists are not infallible. There is nothing wrong with skepticism.

I'm not debating climate change. I believe in it. The guy who wrote the editorial also does.

You are now saying science weeds out bad results. That's what I said to begin with.

I'm sorry that with no Ph.D I am wasting your time. I do believe in science, just not its infallibility.

Extreme examples have little to do with the matter at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #7)

Tue May 2, 2017, 08:35 PM

19. That is patently false.

Some things are settled. For example, no one is arguing today about whether the Earth is round and whether it goes around the Sun. While physicists are still looking for an elegant theory to explain the four forces of nature, no self-respecting scientist would question well-established theories that have been proven in their area of validity. For example, classical mechanics is still valid for low speeds and large sizes; relativity for high speeds and large sizes; quantum mechanics for small sizes, etc. And indeed, relativity produces the same results as classical mechanics at low speeds; quantum mechanics the same results as classical mechanics at large sizes, etc.

The reason science is as good as it is is that it relies on the scientific method -- i.e., on devising and conducting experiments to test the validity of hypotheses. There is a reason we spend so much time, money, and effort on experiments. We don't turn around and question the theories that have been verified with repeated experiments.

There is a reason almost all climate scientists believe in global warning. This conclusion is what is supported by all the available data.

(I have a Ph.D. in physics.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #19)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:09 PM

20. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word all

But even the most extreme examples of certainty would be overturned if somebody could disprove them. At one time people were certain the Earth was flat and the Sun went around the Earth.

Since you are a Ph.D you probably know of many examples of conventional wisdom being overturned. Offhand I can think of one. I remember when millions suffered from ulcers and there was a big business in over the counter medicines for them. A scientist came along and found that most ulcers were caused by bacteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

The scientific method is a wonderful thing. Even things that have been established by an experiments are up for peer review and debate. I'm not a scientist but I've seen that in journals.

Climate change can't be proven by the scientific method. Climate science relies on testing premises. If we knew everything about it there would be no further need for research. Continuous debate improves results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #20)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:39 PM

25. Solid, accepted results don't get disproven.

When a theory has stood up to repeated experimentation, it will simply not be disproven. A better theory might be devised that explains that experiment and more, but the experimental result is not going to go away, and the theory that has stood up to such experimentation will not disappear. At least, that's the way it is in physics.

Note that I never said "conventional wisdom" is never overturned. I said well-established theories are never overturned in their area of validity. A well-established theory is not mere "conventional wisdom".

In the case of ulcers, you're not talking about a well-established theory supported by repeated experimentation. In other words, it was not the case that hundreds of experiments showed that ulcers were not caused by bacteria, only to be upended by one experiment that showed they were. (That being said, I am always skeptical of results in medicine. Things get very difficult when you start studying humans; it also becomes almost impossible to ensure that the scientist's personal biases don't affect the results. Moreover, the news media like to tout every tiny study, regardless of how statistically insignificant it may be, as the final word on that topic; they love to create the impression that something groundbreaking has happened.)

Your statements about the scientific method are not correct. If you're a physicist and start arguing that a well-established result be re-tested, you will simply not be taken seriously, unless there is something novel or challenging about the experimental method you're proposing, in which case it is really the method being tested rather than the theory. If established results were, as you claim, "up for peer review and debate", science could never advance. We would still be debating things that were established centuries ago.

There is a reason almost all climate scientists believe climate change is real. You can argue about the meaning of the word "proof", but it is extremely unlikely that the entire community of climate scientists are wrong about their interpretation of the data. That is hard to accept, considering what the consequences are likely to be, but all that means is that our human biases are pushing us very hard to believe that there must be something someone is missing. That's just wishful thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #25)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:46 PM

27. Climate change was not established centuries ago

You say its "unlikely" that all those people are wrong. I agree. But unlikely isn't the same as impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #7)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:57 PM

35. That doesn't mean the NYTimes should give a platform to someone who is pushing

personal beliefs that have no broad support in the scientific community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #37)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:37 AM

40. Yes, and I also read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/answering-bret-stephens-on-climate-science.html

Stephens is a neoconservative who's pretending that scientists are asserting certainty. They are not.

Stephens is setting up a straw dog and knocking it down. His scientific opinions shouldn't be given a platform at the NYTimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:57 AM

43. Stephens and the scientists at your link and you

are all saying the scientists aren't as certain. Stephens blames the advocates for that. If you read the comments here a great deal of certainty is expressed, despite the scientists not expressing it. So you are the one erecting a straw dog. See for yourself. Read it again.

You first wrote: "That doesn't mean the NYTimes should give a platform to someone who is pushing

personal beliefs that have no broad support in the scientific community."


Where is he doing that? His message is one of opinion, not fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #43)

Wed May 3, 2017, 01:06 AM

44. Stephens isn't a climate scientist and lacks the educational background to debate

the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide. His degrees are in political science, not real science. He's as qualified to critique the conclusions of real climate researchers as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #44)

Wed May 3, 2017, 05:59 PM

50. Stephens isn't debating climate change

He agrees with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #50)

Wed May 3, 2017, 06:23 PM

51. He's debating the CAUSES of climate change and how much human activity is a factor. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #51)

Wed May 3, 2017, 07:00 PM

54. I don't see that there

Here' a link. Would you please tell me where he is debating causes or questioning if human activity is a factor?

"...indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fbret-stephens&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pnwmom (Reply #55)

Wed May 3, 2017, 07:30 PM

56. Alarmist

And a very warped view of the climate movement even if any of his examples are true. That didn't run in the NYT though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #1)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:18 AM

5. Not so diverse that they include FAKE SCIENCE. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:19 PM

23. I read the Op-Ed

It was about certainty, not fake science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #1)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:16 PM

15. "supposed to be diverse"

Then why aren't they publishing writers that insist eating human feces is good for your health? After all, it's just an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenderfoot (Reply #15)

Wed May 3, 2017, 12:30 AM

38. I heard a report that said eating boogers is good for you.

I didn't quit listening to NPR because of it.

If somebody wants to claim eating feces is good I wouldn't boycott the publisher of the claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #1)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:53 PM

32. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue May 2, 2017, 01:12 AM

2. It's a shame that scientists can't be fair and balanced

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 07:11 AM - Edit history (2)

and say that the earth is halfway between flat and round

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #2)

Tue May 2, 2017, 02:49 AM

6. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #2)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:51 AM

8. Warped?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:04 PM

12. At this point we can't save the planet...

... but some crash landing scenarios are much preferable to others.

That's the scientific reality.

Pretending the plane isn't going down and praying to indifferent gods won't keep us flying. Flying is no longer sustainable.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #12)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:13 PM

13. Actually, the planet does not need to be saved.

The planet has been around for 4.6 billion years. It has been baked, flooded, frozen, gotten the shit knocked out of it by asteroids and comets, been a carbon dioxide filled greenhouse, a sulfur dioxide filled wasteland, and much more.

What needs to be saved are our delicate asses. Humans, other animals, and plants can only survive if our environment is within a certain range. We are knocking it out of the range of habitability much faster than it might have done naturally. What we do is to save us, not this metal cored ball wrapped in molten rock, with a little bit of water and a tiny mantle of rock and some miles of gasses that allow us to exist. The planet will be fine in another few hundred thousand years, a geological blink of an eye. We will be gone in a century or two if we do not act to save our own asses now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caliman73 (Reply #13)

Tue May 2, 2017, 07:55 PM

17. I'm a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist by inclination and much formal training.

Our celebrated world civilization is a peculiar layer of trash in the geologic record. The anthropocene is real. We can't change that.

This planet has seen many innovative and disruptive species come and go. We humans are not the first and we won't be the last.

I don't expect we humans will be around a 100,000 years from now. If we are lucky our intellectual offspring, as dust in the winds of this solar system, will remember us.

Much more likely we end up dead dirt that will never be sifted, eternally forgotten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #17)

Tue May 2, 2017, 08:03 PM

18. Sad but true.

I am not a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist... I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

It irks me some when people say "save the planet".

The reality is save ourselves. Prolong our time on earth. Give our offspring and the next few generations a chance at a decent life by not destroying the delicate ecosystem in which we exist. The planet, or some rock from space, or some change elsewhere in the galaxy may do that eventually and we may be powerless to stop it, but we can control the fact that we spew greenhouse gasses, that we foul our water, that we are devastating the landscape by cutting down rain forests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #17)

Wed May 3, 2017, 06:43 PM

53. "Much more likely we end up dead dirt that will never be sifted, eternally forgotten."

Dark, but very poetic. And probably true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #12)

Wed May 3, 2017, 06:29 PM

52. We could theoretically use railguns to launch discs between us

 

and the sun, at the gravitational equilibrium point. It would cost a fortune but only a small percentage of the sun's light needs to be blocked to stop global warming.

It's do-able, with enough resources.

But yeah, the NYT printing climate change skeptics is just evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:51 PM

29. You're too smart to do such,

there is too much valuable reporting, columns, opinions to ignore.

(And I briefly read part of Stephens column today; it was rational, NOT a 'flat-earther,' but open to discuss.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue May 2, 2017, 11:51 PM

30. NYT must print facts, even in op-eds - so says New Yorker

Important from New Yorker editor




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread