One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump

On 2021/07/15 1:36 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>

This is news?

It was very obvious to anyone who could think...

John :-#(#

On 7/15/2021 4:36 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>

Putin hated the Clinton woman more than just about anyone on the planet,
probably reason enough.

On 7/15/2021 6:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>
> On 2021/07/15 1:36 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts
>> confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and
>> “unbalanced” Trump.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>>
>>
>
> This is news?
>
> It was very obvious to anyone who could think...
>
> John :-#(#
>

Putin just noticed that the GOP/Waffen SS and the Clinton/Biden
Brownshirts were having a bit more of a marital spat than usual, at the
time...

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump

What's radically unbalanced is The Guardian.

On 7/15/2021 3:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>
> On 2021/07/15 1:36 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently
>> believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>
> This is news?
>
> It was very obvious to anyone who could think...

That, apparently, excludes 40% of the US population...

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 10:49:04 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
> >
> >https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>
> What's radically unbalanced is The Guardian.

From John Larkin's point of view. Like Cursitor Doom. he likes newspapers that feed him his preferred nonsense. He doesn't like newspapers like the Guardian, whose business is delivering verifiable facts, rather than the kind of narrative that makes right-wing nitwits fell warm and happy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:54:20 AM UTC+10, Don Y wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 3:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> >
> > On 2021/07/15 1:36 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently
> >> believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
> >>
> >> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
> >
> > This is news?
> >
> > It was very obvious to anyone who could think...
>
> That, apparently, excludes 40% of the US population...

Clearly. At least some of that 40% post here. John Larkin and Flyguy like Trump. Neither of them seem able to think all that well about other subjects either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 16/07/2021 03:10, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

> From John Larkin's point of view. Like Cursitor Doom. he likes newspapers that feed him his preferred nonsense. He doesn't like newspapers like the Guardian, whose business is delivering verifiable facts, rather than the kind of narrative that makes right-wing nitwits fell warm and happy.

The Guardian might be the best of a bad bunch, but it's not particularly
good at verifying facts;
<https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections>

Or getting them right in articles it prints:
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs>
(see red bullet point at end of article). Getting "the facts"
back-to-front is something The Guardian has been doing for at least 35
years. At least this time they have noted the correction and made it public.

--

Jeff

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 8:07:19 PM UTC+10, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 16/07/2021 03:10, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> > From John Larkin's point of view. Like Cursitor Doom. he likes newspapers that feed him his preferred nonsense. He doesn't like newspapers like the Guardian, whose business is delivering verifiable facts, rather than the kind of narrative that makes right-wing nitwits fell warm and happy.
>
> The Guardian might be the best of a bad bunch, but it's not particularly
> good at verifying facts;
>
> <https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections>

Nobody is.
> Or getting them right in articles it prints:
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs>
> (see red bullet point at end of article). Getting "the facts"
> back-to-front is something The Guardian has been doing for at least 35
> years. At least this time they have noted the correction and made it public.

The Grauniad has been famous for misprints for quite while - and a lot longer than 35 years. I've been reading it for longer than that.They do admit it and publish corrections.

They've got sub-editors who catch most drop-offs, but nobody is perfect.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/guardian-200-typo-negative-best-worst-grauniad-mistakes

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/16/2021 4:54, Don Y wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 3:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/07/15 1:36 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts
>>> confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and
>>> “unbalanced” Trump.
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>>
>>
>> This is news?
>>
>> It was very obvious to anyone who could think...
>
> That, apparently, excludes 40% of the US population...

Not that bad, this figure. In reality a much higher proportion (about
85%, whichever the country) cannot see the obvious....
The reality is that this was so blindingly obvious even half of
the blind population could see it... :-).

On 7/16/2021 12:54 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 7/16/2021 4:54, Don Y wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 3:33 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021/07/15 1:36 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>> One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts
>>>> confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced”
>>>> Trump.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
>>>
>>> This is news?
>>>
>>> It was very obvious to anyone who could think...
>>
>> That, apparently, excludes 40% of the US population...
>
> Not that bad, this figure. In reality a much higher proportion (about
> 85%, whichever the country) cannot see the obvious....
> The reality is that this was so blindingly obvious even half of
> the blind population could see it... :-).

Sadly, there is a large population (the "Always Trumpers") who refuse to
see (or even consider) anything that contradicts their "wish fulfillment
fantasies". I pegged it at 40% as that was the highest his approval
rating hit.

On 16/07/2021 11:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 16/07/2021 03:10, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
>>  From John Larkin's point of view. Like Cursitor Doom. he likes
>> newspapers that feed him his preferred nonsense. He doesn't like
>> newspapers like the Guardian, whose business is delivering verifiable
>> facts, rather than the kind of narrative that makes right-wing nitwits
>> fell warm and happy.
>
> The Guardian might be the best of a bad bunch, but it's not particularly
> good at verifying facts;
> <https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections>
>
> Or getting them right in articles it prints:
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs>
>
> (see red bullet point at end of article). Getting "the facts"
> back-to-front is something The Guardian has been doing for at least 35
> years. At least this time they have noted the correction and made it
> public.

It used to be famous for its spelling mistakes, hence called Grauniad.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 7/17/2021 12:53 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 16/07/2021 11:07, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 16/07/2021 03:10, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>
>>> From John Larkin's point of view. Like Cursitor Doom. he likes newspapers
>>> that feed him his preferred nonsense. He doesn't like newspapers like the
>>> Guardian, whose business is delivering verifiable facts, rather than the
>>> kind of narrative that makes right-wing nitwits fell warm and happy.
>>
>> The Guardian might be the best of a bad bunch, but it's not particularly good
>> at verifying facts;
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections>
>>
>> Or getting them right in articles it prints:
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs>
>>
>> (see red bullet point at end of article). Getting "the facts" back-to-front
>> is something The Guardian has been doing for at least 35 years. At least this
>> time they have noted the correction and made it public.
>
> It used to be famous for its spelling mistakes, hence called Grauniad.

ALL media seem to suffer from this (*I* do, but that's because I'm
typing in the dark -- and, don't have the benefit of a proofreader).

I can recall when it was "an event" to find an error in a book, etc.
Now, it's almost commonplace!