To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10610
10609  |  10611
Subject: 
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 30 May 2001 12:21:28 GMT
Viewed: 
882 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:

> I have never before in my life seen such misunderstanding and
> miscommunication of facts in a single editorial.

Which facts in particular?  The piece seemed largely devoid of facts.

> Disregarding the
> authors philosphical points, he has almost (and potentially zero) no
> grasp of basic scientific concepts- most notably the concept of forest
> succesion.

He seems to have skyscraper succesion down pat.

> Do you believe any of it?  Does it color your
> views?  Should facts be checked in opinion pieces?

There's nothing to believe.  No.  By whom?

> I'm interested in discussing this, I think we all could learn something
> from it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I already knew that kooks were getting
published.

Chris



Message is in Reply To:
  what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
 
This syndicated column appear in today's issue of the Toledo Blade: (URL) have never before in my life seen such misunderstanding and miscommunication of facts in a single editorial. Disregarding the authors philosphical points, he has almost (and (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

29 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR