B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 9:17:14 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It\'s hard to find anything accurate to say about John Larkin that he doesn\'t find obnoxious. Technically speaking John Larkin isn\'t so much lying about his perceptions of the news as reporting on his own capacity for self-deceit, but he has definitely published a falsehood.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 12:13:59 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:51:47 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 9:48:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...
Oh, get a clue! The Washington Times isn\'t a real news outlet, it\'s an
organ of the Moonies and suitable for wrapping fish.
Do you think Hunter didn\'t send that? That it\'s fake? What if the Wash
Times published Newton\'s Laws of motion? Would you then call them
fake?
I won\'t trust a Washington Times article; on Newton\'s laws, I\'ve studied and worked in
lecture demonstrations of those. No publication can match that.
...
The news is so polarized, there is no honest middle. To see what\'s
actually happening, you have to look at both sides and guess about
what might be true.
Liar.
Gosh, you are obnoxious.
Bye.
It\'s hard to find anything accurate to say about John Larkin that he doesn\'t find obnoxious. Technically speaking John Larkin isn\'t so much lying about his perceptions of the news as reporting on his own capacity for self-deceit, but he has definitely published a falsehood.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney