>I take note of how the Times reports because it’s an
>influential newspaper. Reading religiously (and widely) is a
>dying art, and you describe it as if it were a shameful act. I
>don’t quite understand your aversion to reading
>“religiously,” as you like to put it, or your pride in
>skimming.

Speaking of exaggeration ! At what point did I even approach describing reading religiously "as a shameless act" ? Don't put words in my mouth to prove a shitty and weird point.

The same applies to describing my comments above as "an aversion to reading religiously." How ironic for you to put words in my mouth/exaggerate what I said/outright lie in the same conversation where you describe NYT's reporting and this post as "frenzied" and exaggerated. You're exposing yourself as kind of a clown.


>This is clearly conflation. The minor revelations might be
>interesting—I might even give you “fascinating” given
>your distastes mentioned above, but “unbelievable” they
>are not and it’s that sort of sloppy mishandling of language
>that underscores my ideas about frenzied reporting in the
>Times and in the media in general.

Conflation of what, exactly ?

I'm not gonna argue language semantics with you. Primarily because, if you don't think a lot of what's been revealed to date is explosive, unprecedented, fascinating, unbelievable, then we don't have a lot to talk about. Total non-starter. Many established journalists and legal scholars are describing this administration and the revelations from this investigation as such; I think I'll take their expertise on the subject over yours. But I'll leave open the possibility that you're way smarter and more important than you appear to be/than I think you are.

And again I'll point out the irony in your accusations of "sloppy mishandling of language" in the same post where you grossly mischaracterize and/or outright fail to properly comprehend statements I made above.

Clown.