From: BAR on
In article <946e38cd-3d16-489c-b068-e476d72ddfd7
@n13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
>
> On Mar 30, 6:00�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <56547851-54da-4c4c-b609-ce9705c6d72d@
> > 35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 29, 10:20 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <5a2055c7-7dbc-4050-909f-3a218ef0bf30
> > > > @z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
> >
> > > > > > > If not, that says something definitive about newspaper readers. The
> > > > > > > NYT has a circulation of 928,000 and is generally considered the most
> > > > > > > influential newspaper in the world. The Wash. Times has a circulation
> > > > > > > of 102,000 in a metro area of 5 million.
> >
> > > > > > The NYT is a joke. You cannot be the most influential newspaper in the
> > > > > > world and be on a downward revenue spiral.
> >
> > > > > Why not? All newspapers are on a downward spiral.
> >
> > > > I guess it is which ever newspaper is on the slowest downward spiral
> > > > gets the most credibility?
> >
> > > No, that's not what it is, Bert.
> >
> > What determines credibility? Circulation? USA Today wins.
> >
> > Journalism prizes? They are all biased, they don't count.
> >
> > Revenue? Which newspaper has the greatest revenue?
> >
> > What is the objective criteria used to determine the creditability of
> > newspapers?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What determines influence is a paper's effect on the people and
> policies it reports on. A negative story about a public official in
> the Wash. Times will have virtually no impact. The same story in the
> NY Times may have a huge impact.

If the NYT writes a negative story about a republican you know it is a
hit piece.
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:10:30 -0500, bknight wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 10:34 am, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
>>> <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 29, 7:06 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times,
>>>>> a cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism.
>>>>
>>>> I would have never thought a person like you would recognize that
>>>> the NYT is a cult rag that is an embarassment to journalism.
>>>
>>> He didn't.  Although a semi-colon would've helped,does one have to
>>> point out that he was describing the Washington Times to you?
>>> Otherwise it was a poor reading by you, or a poor attempt at
>>> diversion.
>>
>> Both papers are cult rags, IMHO. One makes no claims to have all the
>> news that's fit to print though, which is pretty braggadocios for a
>> rag that would have to rise to come to the level of a supermarket
>> tabloid.
>
> What does your opinion have to do with your missing Carbon's point? It
> was HIS opinion to which you responded incorrectly.

I assumed it was a deliberate misreading for the purpose of trolling.
His usual.
From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.261c47049d53884f989d56(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <946e38cd-3d16-489c-b068-e476d72ddfd7
> @n13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> >
> > On Mar 30, 6:00�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <56547851-54da-4c4c-b609-ce9705c6d72d@
> > > 35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 29, 10:20 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <5a2055c7-7dbc-4050-909f-3a218ef0bf30
> > > > > @z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
> > >
> > > > > > > > If not, that says something definitive about newspaper readers.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > NYT has a circulation of 928,000 and is generally considered
> > > > > > > > the most
> > > > > > > > influential newspaper in the world. The Wash. Times has a
> > > > > > > > circulation
> > > > > > > > of 102,000 in a metro area of 5 million.
> > >
> > > > > > > The NYT is a joke. You cannot be the most influential newspaper
> > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > world and be on a downward revenue spiral.
> > >
> > > > > > Why not? All newspapers are on a downward spiral.
> > >
> > > > > I guess it is which ever newspaper is on the slowest downward spiral
> > > > > gets the most credibility?
> > >
> > > > No, that's not what it is, Bert.
> > >
> > > What determines credibility? Circulation? USA Today wins.
> > >
> > > Journalism prizes? They are all biased, they don't count.
> > >
> > > Revenue? Which newspaper has the greatest revenue?
> > >
> > > What is the objective criteria used to determine the creditability of
> > > newspapers?- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > What determines influence is a paper's effect on the people and
> > policies it reports on. A negative story about a public official in
> > the Wash. Times will have virtually no impact. The same story in the
> > NY Times may have a huge impact.
>
> If the NYT writes a negative story about a republican you know it is a
> hit piece.

Yes, David Brooks writes them all the time. Idiot.
From: MNMikeW on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4bb27cb1$0$4875$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:17:33 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4bb1327c$0$27202$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bb12852$0$4986$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4bae74f0$0$5115$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> news:clark-BFD3D6.12145423032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>>>>> state.edu...
>>>>>>>>> In article <80s004FugaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW"
>>>>>>>>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> news:clark-26F0AD.09151323032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>>>>>>> state.edu...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <451e2116-4df3-4719-
>>>>>>>>>>> b51f-66d4595a0304(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, kenpitts
>>>>>>>>>>> <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so quick to believe Lewis and Conyers and so quick
>>>>>>>>>>>> to dismiss the story of Kenneth Gladney?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/i-am-kenneth-
>>>>>>>>>>>> gladney/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is in the Moonies' Washington Times?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So because it appears in the Times it can't possibly be true
>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, it will almost certainly carry their strong bias.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just like the New York Times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Wash. Times is no more biased than the NYT Times is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you insane?
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually believe the NYT is not biased?
>>>
>>> Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times, a
>>> cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism.
>>
>> That would be your biased opinion of course.
>
> To save yourself future embarrassment: find a copy of the NY Times, then
> find a copy of the Washington Times (if you can). Read them both. I am
> assuming you're not so stupid that you can't spot the obvious difference
> in quality between the two.

One mans trash.....


From: Carbon on
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:10:16 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4bb27cb1$0$4875$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:17:33 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4bb1327c$0$27202$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4bb12852$0$4986$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4bae74f0$0$5115$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote
>>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>> news:clark-BFD3D6.12145423032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>>>>>> state.edu...
>>>>>>>>>> In article <80s004FugaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW"
>>>>>>>>>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:clark-26F0AD.09151323032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>>>>>>>> state.edu...
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <451e2116-4df3-4719-
>>>>>>>>>>>> b51f-66d4595a0304(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, kenpitts
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so quick to believe Lewis and Conyers and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quick to dismiss the story of Kenneth Gladney?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/i-am-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenneth-gladney/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is in the Moonies' Washington Times?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So because it appears in the Times it can't possibly be true
>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, it will almost certainly carry their strong bias.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like the New York Times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please tell me you're joking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Wash. Times is no more biased than the NYT Times is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you insane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually believe the NYT is not biased?
>>>>
>>>> Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times,
>>>> a cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism.
>>>
>>> That would be your biased opinion of course.
>>
>> To save yourself future embarrassment: find a copy of the NY Times,
>> then find a copy of the Washington Times (if you can). Read them
>> both. I am assuming you're not so stupid that you can't spot the
>> obvious difference in quality between the two.
>
> One mans trash.....

I had no idea you were such a relativist. To me, and aside from any
alleged bias, decent writing and analysis are worth something. In those
respects the NY Times is one of the best newspapers in the world. The
editorials sometimes have a liberal slant, but they are clearly marked
as editorials. They're not trying to trick anybody.

You're probably already crafting some snide one-liner, but let me ask
you: how much do you know about the NYT? How much have you read it?
My guess on both would be: very little.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Prev: Let us endeavor....
Next: I am Kenneth Gladney