Steven Johnson wrote:
> Take a step back :) I stated that the WSJ knowingly printed inaccurate
> information. The data they used was materially flawed.
You mean the _editorial_ on flat taxes? Everybody thinks their
viewpoint of taxation and economics is fact, and everybody else's is
wrong.
> You stated that the WSJ, for whatever reason, was beyond reproach.
In reporting and verifying information from other sources, they do a
fine job. Now if you have a problem with the source, I'll get you
it shortly.
> I countered by providing a known example that they are just as equally
> prone to intentionally mislead as any other publication.
Again, taxation/economics are up for debate. It is obvious that you
believe--er, "know" flat taxes are wrong. Please explain _your_
"facts" and how the WSJ, myself (among others) are reporting "false"
information when we present the flat tax _debate_.
Again, don't mix truthful reporting with opinions, beliefs and
editorials.
-- TheBS
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org chat:thebs413 Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Those living in the US who consider the American flag to be a sym- bol of oppression obviously fail to understand what the word means
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:58 EDT