I initially did not realize that this article was the topic of two separate threads, the other post was by allus.
My initial response appears below the dashed lines below.
Apparently, my take on the article is quite different from the other posters.
That's ok.
One observation regarding the use of the word "geriatrics": Ohiogirl I understand your points and comments, and I concur to some degree; however, I agree wi ilovetv objection
in this issue bc the author is writing as an investigative reporter, not as an op/ed. Consequently, the article content should be factual, accurate- which includes the use of words in proper context and in accordance with their generally accepted definition/meaning-, and devoid of hyperbole.
--
I see no difference between a horse's a** and the author of the article.
While the article contains some accurate points (Hey! Nobody's perfect! The dopey author messed up and did get a few things right), generally it is an overwhelming array of misinformation, partial information, inaccuracies, faulty conclusions, errors, illogical deductions, outright stupidity, and stereotypical hyperbole tinged with ageism
and racism.
I am confident that my fellow TOTVers who are more intelligent or more eloquent- or both- than I will shred the author's assertions and suppositions. I defer comments regarding the specific content of the article to you, with one exception.
That exception is: I am incredulous that a Harvard professor would harbor, let alone express, such outrageously ignorant and blatantly bigoted thoughts. Embarrassingly pitiful.
|