So if the NYTimes is such a bastion of credibility, how do you explain this newsdiff? This isn't just outright slanted, the article was originally neutral and somebody decided it needed to be edited from a factual…
I imagine many here would kill for some peace and quiet at work. The idea that I'd want to add noise and conversation into it is horrifying to me personally. Even at home, I would never want to have some random thing…
Presumably it's a reference to the fact that DeGoes refused to roll over when activists tried to torpedo his conference for inviting the wrong kind of speaker after a double blind process. And continued to be pestered…
So if the NYTimes is such a bastion of credibility, how do you explain this newsdiff? This isn't just outright slanted, the article was originally neutral and somebody decided it needed to be edited from a factual…
I imagine many here would kill for some peace and quiet at work. The idea that I'd want to add noise and conversation into it is horrifying to me personally. Even at home, I would never want to have some random thing…
Presumably it's a reference to the fact that DeGoes refused to roll over when activists tried to torpedo his conference for inviting the wrong kind of speaker after a double blind process. And continued to be pestered…