[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>> is 'record heat' or is 'breaking records' a complete   
   >>>>>>> falsehood.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And these are the people who are supposedly   
   >>>>>>> 'fact-checking' everything from your social media posts   
   >>>>>>> to your presidential candidates.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The record lows occurred near or prior to the turn of last   
   >>>>>> century, while the record highs are generally later. Sounds   
   >>>>>> like warming to me.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What part of 'record-breaking' do you not understand?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I didn't read the claims, your or theirs.   
   >>>   
   >>> Then you're not qualified to comment on this discussion. The only   
   >>> thing you can do is try to change the subject, which is exactly   
   >>> what you did.   
   >>   
   >> "Not qualified"???   
   >   
   > Yes, if you haven't read either my claims or the newspaper's, by   
   > definition you don't what's being discussed here. In other words, not   
   > qualified.   
      
      
   "Not qualified"???  Wow, congrats on your promotion to Gruppenführer!   
      
   I commented on a portion of your post.  Moreover, and instructively to   
   you, I didn't delete the remainder as though it never happened...   
      
      
   >> As for "record-breaking", records are always being broken   
   >> somewhere ...making assertions or denials meaningless. Meanwhile,   
   >> I'd guess they care more about eyeballs than agendas, but, then, I   
   >> can't read minds.   
   >   
   > The L.A. Times doesn't care about money (eyeballs). If it did, then   
   > it wouldn't be cratering its business with nothing but wokeness.   
   > Every day the headlines consist of story after story about racism,   
   > transgenderism, climate change, and how we need more illegals and   
   > vagrants or we need to spend more tax money on them. Even it's   
   > leftist readers are tired of it and it's losing several hundred   
   > million dollars a year as subscription numbers collapse. The   
   > billionaire that bought the Times gave it to his activist daughter to   
   > play with and lets it run at a loss, but even he has his limits.   
   > However, rather than, you know, change the paper back to a real news   
   > organization, his solution was to just halve the newsroom and fire   
   > hundreds of people.   
      
   You could be right that the L.A. Times doesn't care about money.   
   However, here in America, that would be what's called a 'black swan',   
   one akin to a repeal of gravity...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)