"Dave" wrote in message
...
Scout wrote:
.... the
Daily News is a disgraceful rag for publishing only those views that
agree
with them. I wouldn't wipe my ass with their newspaper.

What he means, of course, is that the views they publish differ from his
own. There is a plethora of publications he can read to validate his own
views. The Times comes to mind.

Why is that Dave, does the Times publish more than one view on a given
topic?
I'm not looking to have my view validated, I just have to wonder how many
others agree with me but will never be heard via that rag.
Scout

wrote in message
ps.com...
Scout wrote:
.... the
Daily News is a disgraceful rag for publishing only those views that
agree
with them. I wouldn't wipe my ass with their newspaper.

Do you often get requests for that?

You've never wiped your ass with a newspaper?
Scout

Scout wrote:
You've never wiped your ass with a newspaper?

On rare occasions with incorrect or misleading tech manuals, yes.

Newspaper, no.

-signed- Injun Ear (formerly known as Eagle Eye)

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:49:02 -0500, "Scout" said:

What he means, of course, is that the views they publish differ from his
own. There is a plethora of publications he can read to validate his own
views. The Times comes to mind.

Why is that Dave, does the Times publish more than one view on a given
topic?

The Times, like virtually every paper, has a point of view. It has one
more
in line with yours.

I will give the Times credit for appointing a "public editor" in an effort
to restore its lost credibility. His job is to evaluate how well the Times
is doing on truth in publishing, and his columns are recommended reading.

But for a variety of views, read a variety of papers.

That's true, just because the piece reads "Readers' Comments" is no reason
for me to believe it in any way reflects the comments of readers who see the
scam for what it is.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:49:02 -0500, "Scout" said:

What he means, of course, is that the views they publish differ from his
own. There is a plethora of publications he can read to validate his own
views. The Times comes to mind.
Why is that Dave, does the Times publish more than one view on a given
topic?

The Times, like virtually every paper, has a point of view. It has one more
in line with yours.

I will give the Times credit for appointing a "public editor" in an effort
to restore its lost credibility. His job is to evaluate how well the Times
is doing on truth in publishing, and his columns are recommended reading.

But for a variety of views, read a variety of papers.
You're absolutely correct. That's why I read Mallard Fillmore every
day - so that I can understand the Republican point of view.