top ten reasons you cant trust a pit bull.

[DizzDizz]

Depends on how you cook it. Low simmer over an open fire with some Cheyenne pepper is pretty good. Also, if you bring a few limbs to your local Chinese restaurant, they will deep fry it and put it in some General Tso sauce. You should try it.

But Pit bull definitely tastes better, but you can't overcook it. Gotta leave the inside of the roast really pink or it will just dry out and taste like shoe leather.

i like mine pink inside

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

i like mine pink inside

[TSISam]

Neat-O. So why is Jon breaking my balls, again? Oh Wait, because I corrected his grammar and punctuation when his sentences were so bad a single coherent thought wasn't even presentable. Wall Street Journal? Never said it needed to be.

He continues to break mine, I will continue to break his. SHENANIGANS.

wait*

[Zullock Holmes]

So... you don't read the journal is what you're saying?

no, i don't read the journal.


What you gettin at bubsy??

[Buffalo Phil]

wait*

That's it? That's all you got? C'mon, Jon can do better than that. I thought you were editing for the Wall Street Journal here.

[Nick]

no, i don't read the journal.


What you gettin at bubsy??

The journal is regarded as one of the most well written newspapers in the world, just wanted to know what your thoughts were on it, no biggie

[Zullock Holmes]

Yea, without a doubt.

I've read stories from it, but not regularly and most was for projects and stuff.


Basically if you write for either the journal or the times. You are an incredibly respected journalist and basically the best.

Both have their spins though, implication is a big thing in journalism, and both papers are VERY good at it. They can change one word and make a story sound completely different. Times is liberal, Journal is conservative (obviously, but its done very skillfully; also not even going into Op-ED)

Look up a big NEWS story topic in both papers, you will get two stories, probably about the same length and most likely very similar headlines. Read each alone and one would think it was a un-biased informative story. Compare them across and you can notice suddle differences. Writers will focus on certain facts, draw your attention one way with word choice, and even suppress certain facts or points in mundane rhetoric they believe most readers will skim past. Like i said, done quite well, but there is without a doubt NO news story you will ever read in today's world that is completely objective.

[Nick]

Yeah I agree with that, being a Finance guy I tend to stick with the Journal for my news, Times has a lot of useless nonsense sometimes

Also, I think the Journal gets a bad rap for being "too conservative," its getting more and more moderate nowadays.

[TSISam]

That's it? That's all you got? C'mon, Jon can do better than that. I thought you were editing for the Wall Street Journal here.

plenty of others. in fact, too many others for me to truly give a shit. just figured id bring the first one to your attention while you were pulling apart someone elses posts.

[Buffalo Phil]

Yea, without a doubt.

I've read stories from it, but not regularly and most was for projects and stuff.


Basically if you write for either the journal or the times. You are an incredibly respected journalist and basically the best.

Both have their spins though, implication is a big thing in journalism, and both papers are VERY good at it. They can change one word and make a story sound completely different. Times is liberal, Journal is conservative (obviously, but its done very skillfully; also not even going into Op-ED)

Look up a big NEWS story topic in both papers, you will get two stories, probably about the same length and most likely very similar headlines. Read each alone and one would think it was a un-biased informative story. Compare them across and you can notice suddle differences. Writers will focus on certain facts, draw your attention one way with word choice, and even suppress certain facts or points in mundane rhetoric they believe most readers will skim past. Like i said, done quite well, but there is without a doubt NO news story you will ever read in today's world that is completely objective.

I would say that is either human error in the sense that the journalist cannot remove themselves from the situation and write without their opinion scratching at the keyboard as they write.

plenty of others. in fact, too many others for me to truly give a shit. just figured id bring the first one to your attention while you were pulling apart someone elses posts.

Oh well, kind of figured you could help me out with my grammatical skills seeing as how I do actually care, but it seems you'll just keep breaking my balls anyway. Apathy wins again, Thanks, Sam.

[Zullock Holmes]

Yeah I agree with that, being a Finance guy I tend to stick with the Journal for my news, Times has a lot of useless nonsense sometimes

Also, I think the Journal gets a bad rap for being "too conservative," its getting more and more moderate nowadays.

Journal is the place to go for finance without a doubt.


But for general news, i tend to like the times. Their new's stories really are top notch. Their facts are spot on and they remain pretty objective for most of the hard hitting stuff, the liberal spin stuff comes mostly in articles regarding politics and controversial issues. Their world section is outstanding, the stuff in there makes you wonder why you've never seen on TV before. Most people forget that a half hour news program is pretty short, and theres a lot of significant things going on in the world that most here will never even know about.

You see what countries are killing people over what, fighting each other for what, disease's killing thousands; it really makes you realize the fact that we live in a country so great that rising income taxes, 11% unemployment, and kim kardashian are the big topics.

There are plenty of countries that would KILL for 11% unemployment.

[HeavyMetal]

Journal is the place to go for finance without a doubt.


But for general news, i tend to like the times. Their new's stories really are top notch. Their facts are spot on and they remain pretty objective for most of the hard hitting stuff, the liberal spin stuff comes mostly in articles regarding politics and controversial issues. Their world section is outstanding, the stuff in there makes you wonder why you've never seen on TV before. Most people forget that a half hour news program is pretty short, and theres a lot of significant things going on in the world that most here will never even know about.

You see what countries are killing people over what, fighting each other for what, disease's killing thousands; it really makes you realize the fact that we live in a country so great that rising income taxes, 11% unemployment, and kim kardashian are the big topics.

There are plenty of countries that would KILL for 11% unemployment.

youre both idiots

daily show trumps all get with it

[Buffalo Phil]

youre both idiots

daily show trumps all get with it

[Zullock Holmes]

I would say that is either human error in the sense that the journalist cannot remove themselves from the situation and write without their opinion scratching at the keyboard as they write.

much easier said than done..... that being said, you don't just write for one of those papers. It takes a portfolio with years worth the stories, all writers will have that conservative or liberal swing. Remember you are technically writing a "story", one that will be fact checked about 8 times before print.

When the times or the journal hires someone, they know exactly what they are getting and they expect the stories to follow suit for that writer.


Nick, yes i have heard that. Even Fox News broadcasts are getting better. Their OP-ED is still very right sided, but that will always be. The important thing really is the news itself, it can be very dangerous to manipulate the information people recieve and use to make decisions on. I believe the media has the power to make some pretty massive influences over people.


Jon Stewart is a genius. His interviews are some of the most unbiased and brutally honest on TV.

[TSISam]

Oh well, kind of figured you could help me out with my grammatical skills seeing as how I do actually care, but it seems you'll just keep breaking my balls anyway. Apathy wins again, Thanks, Sam.

nope, i'm done. apathy or better things to do... you can take your pick. i'm sure Dizzy and Jon can empathize with you on the ball busting for grammatical (over & under) punctuation that you just can't help though.