Thinking Fool

On Bush: I'm sorry, but he'd be a fool not to tap that if given the opportunity.

On the Enquirer: Even though they were right on Edwards, I still think you have to take everyhting they say with a WHOPPING grain of salt. Although I would watch Palin-pr0n if given the opportunity.

Over Educated -

You do realized that there are other indicia of accuracy, besides the pedigree of the publication, right?

This has nothing to do with pedigree, and everything to do with the quality of reporting and the publication in questions dedication to ensuring that what they print is accurate. I'm sorry, but I don't recall the Enquirer printing retractions when they got a story wrong. To be fair however, I haven't read the Enquirer since I was twelve, so perhaps they are now America's finest news source. Somehow I doubt it.

Over Educated -

You do realize that "quality of reporting" and a publication's "dedication to ensuring what they print is accurate" are essentially pedigree?

I'm not saying that The Enquirer is a great paper, or that the NYT is a bad paper, but in the past 6 months we've seen the Enquirer get a big story right and the NYT get a big story wrong. You can't accept or reject a story on the basis of the reporting source.

So maybe I'm missing your point here, but what are you suggesting? That I should examine critically the Enquirer's three page expose on the phone companies new service that allows me to speak to the dead?

You are also missing the part where I mentioned "dedicaiton to ensuring what they print is accurate."

Yes the NYT does occasionally get stories wrong. When it does so (and gets caught) it admits it, prints a retraction and goes out and tries to get the story right. The NYT takes responsibility for its actions, and hence is a more trusted source for news than the National Enquirer. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. You judge a news source by its track record. I would posit that the NY Times track record is several orders of magnitude superior to the national Enquirer's.

I'm not saying that you should uncritically accept information from any source (including the Grey Lady), but the fact remains that some sources are more trustworthy than others. Of course, I'm one of those old fashion sciency-type folks who believe in objective reality (at least when I'm not making an argument for my client).

My point? That the level of vitriolic criticism you've lobbed at Fool was entirely baseless. He took a story that had originally been published in The Enquirer, and added to it. Instead of judging him on his addition you condemned him for the original source. And then, with your Palin comment, you basically brought it all back around again. Despite the fact that the story proved true, you've persisted in your criticism.

A little less hubris might be in order. No one thinks The Enquirer is a terrific news source, but a good story is a good story, no matter the publication. Fool had the good sense to recognize
a good story, despite it's source. You've gotten hung up on the source, and that's prevented you from seeing the story. In fact, you're obviously so jaded by the source that you're still complaining about it several posts later.

I guess, all in all, my point is that you should back down. Quit your grousing. And in the future, don't let the source keep you from seeing a great story, or make you believe something that isn't there (like the McCain "affair", which, btw, was never retracted).

Over-educated: I am amused that you admit to EVER having been an Enquirer reader. What happened at age 12/13 that changed your views? Too much other reading to do for your upcoming Bar-Mitvah?

Fool: You should make a prediction NOW about whether the Palin rumors will be proven true or false, to further test your prowess as a seer. If you get this one right, other predictions will Palin comparison.

Is the name of Todd Palin's affair-rumored business associate Adam? If so, did he introduce himself using the "Palin-drome", "Madam, I'm Adam"?

Why isn't Palin referred to as "Governess?" Seems proper, and much sexier.

On GWB, Condi, and Palin: A Palin the bed is worth two in the Bush. Especially if it has Rice inside it.

Philosopher:

I'm not lobbing "vitriolic criticism" at Fool, I'm joshing around. I'm sorry you have taken a personal affront but Fool is a big boy and he can handle himself. Fool knows I love him (in a strictly hetero way, except for that one time, and we were just experimenting).

Ferm: I have a guilty little secret, I read all of the tabloids while I am in line at the grocery store. My fiancee is horrified.

I have to go with you on the Palin-Condi 3some. That would almost convince me to give up my liberal leanings.

You boys have certainly been entertaining today. over_e, shh, that was our little secret. ;-)

"Governess"??? That certainly does make my loins tingle.