Yup. They expressed their sorrow that a white man was picked for president in the wake of #MePoo and Black Crimes Matter; that is quite clear. In fact, the university is "under fire" for it.
Show me in New York Times article where the New York Times expresses sorrow over the decision.Yup. They expressed their sorrow that a white man was picked for president in the wake of #MePoo and Black Crimes Matter; that is quite clear. In fact, the university is "under fire" for it.
You're a real stickler for sources and citations, so let's see yours.
Is it that the regret is not expressed strongly enough for you? Would you prefer the word pout?he departure of Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard’s first female president, who is stepping down after 11 years, created an opportunity for Harvard to choose a leader who would reflect the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements that have shaped campus dialogue in recent years.Instead, it chose Mr. Bacow
Zero regret expressed.Is it that the regret is not expressed strongly enough for you? Would you prefer the word pout?
And you didn't provide a link or proper citation.
Wallowed a better word for you? They made it a point to make the opening emphasis of the article about that in outright defiance of the facts purveyed in the article. Tell me, why you think they'd do that?Zero regret expressed.
And you didn't provide a link or proper citation.
No. They told of a choice that could have been made reflecting some political movements on campus that have been in the news, then said they didn't make that choice.
It's incredibly simple to understand. I can see how you can't understand it.
What's "incredibly simple to understand" is the reality that newspapers understand that a typical reader reads the first three paragraphs of an article and moves on. The NYT effectively lamented not choosing a #MePoo or Black Crimes Matters candidate by their order of selection.
No. They told of a choice that could have been made reflecting some political movements on campus that have been in the news, then said they didn't make that choice.
It's incredibly simple to understand. I can see how you can't understand it.
Nope. No lamentation at all.
You're free to prove your "first three paragraphs" contention with proper citation though.
You're unfamiliar with the concept of frontloading and why it's done? That sounds like your problem, not mine.
Sounds like you don't have proper do entation to back up your claim. That is your problem, not mine.
"Proper do entation" is your thing, huh? You must really want to ship all those illegal Mexicans back.
So you're trying to change the subject in your own thread now.
No, I'm just pointing out who the "hypocrite" may be. But let's get back to you not understanding the concept of frontloading. No wonder you're so easy to blue pill.So you're trying to change the subject in your own thread now.
OK, we're back to your providing proof for your claim, which actually has nothing to do with your original argument since you failed to prove any lamentation from the NYT.
Frontloading is something that is routinely done in the media. Are you the idiot who denies this?
You just moved the goalposts.
Frontloading is something that is routinely done in the media. Are you the idiot who denies this?
Again.
You just made a vague post.
Again.
Nothing vague about it. You're changing the subject and moving the goalposts all over the place because you couldn't prove the NYT was lamenting anything.
NYT frontloaded a political talking point sympathetic with their editorial outlook even though it was of little to no material consequence to the substance to the article; this they did as a form of lamentation. This has been "proved" to you. Now, you're just throwing a tantrum.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 02-24-2018 at 07:37 PM.
There was no "editorial outlook" at all.
Sorry, you failed again.
Like a child. 'Nuh uh!'
There simply wasn't any in the excerpt you so sloppily tried to cite.
Like a child. 'Nuh uh!'
Sorry. It's just that simple. Even a child could see you failed.
'Nuh uh!'
I gave you the excerpt. You're throwing a tantrum cos it doesn't mesh with your politics.
Yeah, the excerpt failed to prove your claim.
Simple. Not a thing you can do about it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
