With one hell of a lot of frantic, blurred motion.
Just stopping by as a regular WSJ reader to note the marked contrast between the fairly typical mainstream mildly left-leaning perspective which typifies the Journal’s news pages, and on the other hand the fervently anti-union, climate change-scoffing right-wing slant of the editorial section (which does get some things right, as in the free speech arena).
The Journal does some good investigative reporting, mostly (but not entirely) on dubious business practices - an example being the rise and fall of Theranos, a would-be giant in laboratory testing.
You guys are harshing Bricker’s buzz with all this analysis stuff. Can’t he just enjoy his Snoopy-ish happy-dancing at a news story where an attempt at unionizing got slapped down?
That’s what I do. The problem is that you keep using words inaccurately and imprecisely and then hastily cleaning them up with additional words when I point out your inaccuracies and imprecision.
For example, here are the most recent words you wrote on the no-information/biased-information question:
And here are some other words of yours from earlier posts:
So now you’re backpedaling—again—to claim that when you made categorical unqualified statements about preferring no information to biased information, you really only meant that you prefer different information (from some unspecified other “source” in “the market”) to a particular type of information from a particular local-news media outlet. :rolleyes:
Your problem, Bricker, is that you don’t formulate a clear and precise argument in the first place. And then when I question your argument’s logical flaws you hurriedly stick some after-the-fact qualifiers on it to make it more defensible, while disingenuously scolding me for not having read it correctly.
Yes, I did make categorical unqualified statements.
I did so because I foolishly believed that the context of my statements was clear.
Now, if someone held a flamethrower to a busload of children, nuns, and cute puppies, and said, “Accept biased news or we will toast this bus,” then I would eagerly accept the biased news, only to hear you crow about how I made categorical unqualified statements and if I meant to exclude napalm-fueled coercion I could have easily said so.
I was talking about the situation as we face it today, where the choice is not “bias or nothing” for the consumer, but “bias or nothing” from the news source. It seemed as obvious and unmistakeable as the nose on Cyrano’s face that this was the context, but I admit I did not reckon with your laserlike unerring focus on the wrong thing.