Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 24, 2018, 01:16:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Flashback - Trump confronted bat wielding mugger and stopped him.  (Read 2683 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2018, 07:41:49 PM »

the truth is, neither did you

lol.  Ok.  Whatever.  Stop embarrassing yourself.

And here she is giving a Ted Talk.  Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is.   Roll Eyes  Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself.  If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2018, 07:43:42 PM »

lol.  Ok.  Whatever.  Stop embarrassing yourself.

And here she is giving a Ted Talk.  Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is.   Roll Eyes  Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself.  If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU</a>

OMG... you really are denying you did exactly what i did
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2018, 07:50:15 PM »

https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/27/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2018, 07:51:40 PM »

http://sharylattkisson.com/trending/anti-vaccine/
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2018, 07:52:31 PM »

can't really trust what an anti vaccine talking person is saying... they really aren't that smart
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2018, 07:53:31 PM »

OMG... you really are denying you did exactly what i did

Seriously? You're trying to make me second guess how smart I think you are?  Not only did I point you to a thread I created about a book I read that discussed, in part, the problems with snopes, I give you a link to a Ted Talk by the author of that same book, where she talks about the problems with trusting online content, so you can evaluate for yourself how objective she is.  

Actually you could do me a favor.  If you watch that clip and come away thinking that woman is a hack that will tell me all I need to know.  If you refuse to watch it that will tell me a lot too.  Her talk is just a portion of what I learned in her book about all of the false information on the internet.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2018, 07:55:24 PM »

can't really trust what an anti vaccine talking person is saying... they really aren't that smart

Welp.  I have to say I am sorry I wasted my time trying to help you.  But someone will read this thread, whether they chime in or not, and educate themselves.  You?  You'll go read what some hack has to say so they can think for you.  Or create some ridiculous red herring to avoid trying to become smarter. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2018, 08:05:24 PM »

yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.

This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money

Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.

Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.

What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.

"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.

it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.

I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.



I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.

It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.

It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.

What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.




Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this  right wing reporter
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2018, 08:11:16 PM »

Dos Equis ain't gonna let this one go.   Grin



Wurd.  LOL   Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #59 on: March 05, 2018, 08:12:34 PM »

yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.

This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money

Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.

Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.

What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.

"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.

it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.

I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.



I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.

It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.

It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.

What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.




Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this  right wing reporter


Well at least I know you're a hack.  I thought you were little more independent minded.  And this is now the second dishonest thing you've done in this thread, because out of 710 reviews of her book on Amazon, 94 percent are 4 and 5 star reviews.  You took a review from the 2 percent who gave her a negative rating.  

But you did precisely what I said you would do:

lol.  Ok.  Whatever.  Stop embarrassing yourself.

And here she is giving a Ted Talk.  Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is.   Roll Eyes  Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself. If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.    

Welp.  I have to say I am sorry I wasted my time trying to help you.  But someone will read this thread, whether they chime in or not, and educate themselves.  You?  You'll go read what some hack has to say so they can think for you. Or create some ridiculous red herring to avoid trying to become smarter.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #60 on: March 05, 2018, 08:16:41 PM »

Wurd.  LOL   Grin

ok you slayed me.. I give up  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #61 on: March 05, 2018, 08:17:12 PM »

ok you slayed me.. I give up  Roll Eyes

The truth shall set you free.   Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7413


! Repent or Perish !


« Reply #62 on: March 05, 2018, 10:21:35 PM »

yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.

This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money

Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.

Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.

What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.

"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.

it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.


I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.



I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.

It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.

It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.

What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.




Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this  right wing reporter


Fair points, for sure.  She wants to turn a buck, but (unfortunately) she didn't build the interest she deserved.  (Small wonder, though, considering she'd hoped to take on the media she'd otherwise rely upon to help her do it.)

But she's lowered herself, basically, to make a comfortable living.  That's what I'd say has happened with her.  Even with that, she's still one of the most interesting individuals to come down the pike recently.
Report to moderator   Logged

Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2018, 10:31:16 AM »

lol.  Ok.  Whatever.  Stop embarrassing yourself.

And here she is giving a Ted Talk.  Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is.   Roll Eyes  Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself.  If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU</a>

I watched the clip. What was it that you found to be so incredible? Before seeing this clip, did you not think there were things like pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors? There is a lot of effort put forth to misinform especially when there is large sums of money involved. How does one determine what is true? For example,  she has determined that 95% of the information regarding Autism is not credible, and the 5% from the fringe is... How does one conclude that when they aren't hands on in the lab? How did she decide what to trust? Can everyone be in on the conspiracy? (which she says is a marker for AstroTurf)  I thought what she said was common sense to a certain degree, so I don't disagree with what she said in the clip, I just didn't find it new or eye opening   
Report to moderator   Logged
illuminati
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 6292


The Strongest Shall Survive.


« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2018, 03:15:43 PM »

lol.  Ok.  Whatever.  Stop embarrassing yourself.

And here she is giving a Ted Talk.  Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is.   Roll Eyes  Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself.  If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU</a>


Very interesting video
I like what she is saying
And it echoes my thoughts on what and how mass propaganda /
Brainwashing is going on.

The internet is a great invention
It’s a double edged sword as there is as much or more bad / crap info
As there is good.

As she pointed out it’s getting ever harder to discover truth
And reliable info.

Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2018, 04:28:55 PM »


Very interesting video
I like what she is saying
And it echoes my thoughts on what and how mass propaganda /
Brainwashing is going on.

The internet is a great invention
It’s a double edged sword as there is as much or more bad / crap info
As there is good.

As she pointed out it’s getting ever harder to discover truth
And reliable info.



yep
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54281

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2018, 06:01:32 PM »

I watched the clip. What was it that you found to be so incredible? Before seeing this clip, did you not think there were things like pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors? There is a lot of effort put forth to misinform especially when there is large sums of money involved. How does one determine what is true? For example,  she has determined that 95% of the information regarding Autism is not credible, and the 5% from the fringe is... How does one conclude that when they aren't hands on in the lab? How did she decide what to trust? Can everyone be in on the conspiracy? (which she says is a marker for AstroTurf)  I thought what she said was common sense to a certain degree, so I don't disagree with what she said in the clip, I just didn't find it new or eye opening   

Thank you for watching the clip.  I didn't say it was "incredible."  I said I learned a lot and that it's really impossible to watch that clip and come away thinking that woman is some right wing hack.  Unless you're a leftwing hack. 

There is nothing "obvious" about the fact the majority of the information you see on wikipedia is unreliable.  Or that people are unable to correct false information about themselves.  Or that snopes is unreliable.  Or the underhanded manipulation by the drug companies, etc.   

And if you knew what astroturf was, then good.  I didn't before I read her book.  She discussed a number of tactics used to spread disinformation.  For example, a lot of editorials are ghost written by activists, then passed off as something coming from the paper itself.  Some activists actually get advanced copies of "news" stories and are able to change the content of the stories. 

I know you're not going to read the book, but for anyone else, highly recommended.  It will change the way you view the "news." 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2018, 08:54:14 PM »

Thank you for watching the clip.  I didn't say it was "incredible."  I said I learned a lot and that it's really impossible to watch that clip and come away thinking that woman is some right wing hack.  Unless you're a leftwing hack. 

There is nothing "obvious" about the fact the majority of the information you see on wikipedia is unreliable.  Or that people are unable to correct false information about themselves.  Or that snopes is unreliable.  Or the underhanded manipulation by the drug companies, etc.   

And if you knew what astroturf was, then good.  I didn't before I read her book.  She discussed a number of tactics used to spread disinformation.  For example, a lot of editorials are ghost written by activists, then passed off as something coming from the paper itself.  Some activists actually get advanced copies of "news" stories and are able to change the content of the stories. 

I know you're not going to read the book, but for anyone else, highly recommended.  It will change the way you view the "news." 

https://www.amazon.com/Signal-Noise-Many-Predictions-Fail-but/dp/0143125087

Read this about a year ago. Interesting book as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10435


« Reply #68 on: March 07, 2018, 01:31:28 PM »

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!