Comments on: The mystery of New York

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 23:07:57 +0000

Michael who said that you endorsed the vile rag?

By: Michael Jennings (London)

Michael Jennings (London) — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:50:01 +0000

Given that my post consisted of one short paragraph attacking and mocking the NYT, I am hard pressed to think this is easily interpreted as my endorsing it in some way. Anything is possible, though, I suppose.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 19:44:29 +0000

You are right Alisa.

And I am just being Mr-Grumpy-Head.

A few public hangings would cheer me up.

But there is this pesky non-aggression-principle.

By: Alisa

Alisa — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:05:20 +0000

Paul: I didn’t say that you started the thread, I said that it turned into an argument when you wondered why people are reading it:-)

BTW, there are ways to read their articles without leaving a footprint, but I’d absolutely agree with you if you say that it’s not worth the effort. They do publish interesting stuff occasionally, but so do many other websites, and we can’t read them all anyway.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:44:29 +0000

No doubt you are correct Alisa.

Some people like the NYT (by the way I did not start this thread – Michael wrote the post), and it may well last beyond November 2014.

Normally when I think people “can not possibly be so bad that they will….” that is exactly what they do.

Midwesterner – agreed.

It is certainly not “silly”.

And, as they are lying scum, I have no great desire to help their business enterprise.

By: Midwesterner

Midwesterner — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:20:46 +0000

Paul is not the only one. I refuse to read anything but the blogs on NYT. I find their ridiculous registration is a convenient way to help me honor my boycott. There was a brief period of time when I actually “mouse-over”ed links to avoid clicking NYT links.

It is purely a tactical choice on my part. NYT is a top commander in the war on Western culture in general and individual liberty in particular and, regardless of what delicious goodies they use to bait their propaganda (I’ll grant that some of the article titles and excerpts are tantalizing), I don’t want to give them hits and any collateral ad revenue that may go with them.

On occasion I read links to their blogs on the hope that they are not too heavily censored and allow reasoned dissent.

Anyone who will lie to you about one thing, will lie to you about anything. Since I know NYT are untrustworthy in the matters where I have prior knowledge, I have to assume they lie about the stuff which I have no knowledge of my own and am at the mercy of their integrity. They are not a trustworthy information aggregator irrespective of field.

By: Alisa

Alisa — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:00:50 +0000

Paul: you may find the NYT boring, stupid, evil and anything else for that matter (and I will agree with you much more often than not), but this whole thing started with you wondering why are people still reading it. The answer to that is: because. they. like. it. Why do they like it? Some of them are stupid, boring and/or evil themselves, and also: not all of the NYT is boring, stupid and evil. Of course you will have to take my word for it, because you made it a rule not to look at the NYT articles. Which is absolutely fine, as even though you are missing on some interesting things, so do all of us. As to making predictions, I'm sure you were joking and know better than that.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 09:35:27 +0000

Oh, that’s silly.
When your 10 “free” articles are finished, you just delete the cookies on your computer and you get another 10. The NYT is pretty dumb, but some articles are nice.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:40:57 +0000

Jacob – since the New York Times started to play up their internet footprint, I have made it a rule to never go to any article of theirs on the internet.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:33:22 +0000

What you are biased about is the quality of the NYT, not the people in general, though you may be biased about that too. The quality of the NYT is not as terrible as you state. As I said, while many articles are indeed rubbish, even boring rubbish, many others are fine and informative, mainly those that are not about politics or current affairs. What I read there is about science, medicine, history, life styles, etc. I don't buy the NYT and would not spend money on it, but it's definitely a good source of information provided: a. it's not the only source, b. you can read between lines and filter out the rubbish. Try this fascinating obituary of Beate Sirota Gordon.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:17:18 +0000

I always put dates on predictions – otherwise they are not checkable.

By the way I understand the humour in your comment.

Of course I am biased – I believe that human beings are not (at base) utter scum.

It is not just that the NYT is leftist propaganda – it is also badly written BORING leftist propaganda (I point I have made several times).

If it can just go on and on – with people buying it because they are told it is good, then human nature is totally plastic.

In short if people were told that eating live babies was good – they would do that as well.

I do not think highly of human beings – but I do believe that there is some limit on human depravity. At least for most people.

I have no desire to live in a world where this is not true.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:10:09 +0000

“But I still think it will be gone before November 2014.”

Hey, when you make a prediction, never put a date on it!

You are biased. The NYT caters to current tastes.
It is loosing some money, but it has big and deep pocket supporters.
I think that the prophecy about NYT’s demise is a little premature.