|
Post by soonerbillz on Sept 9, 2022 20:59:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 10, 2022 2:24:31 GMT
Guess I know not to trust that site.
|
|
|
Post by beanguy on Sept 10, 2022 16:10:55 GMT
This sounds like a set up for a contest. Win a date, as a bonus you get to meet Sandy.
|
|
|
Post by eastmark on Sept 10, 2022 16:25:29 GMT
Sandy Dharma rocks.
|
|
|
Post by Buck on Sept 13, 2022 14:34:02 GMT
It'd probably take a minute on the internet to find out my marital status. Sandy and I celebrated 50 years of marriage this year.
Reading that page, a thought of a rollicking country flavored tune called "74 And Single" popped into my head.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 14, 2022 2:39:25 GMT
I found at least one (not to be named) lookup site where you ARE married. It says Sandy is married too. But it doesn't say if you are married to each other. :)
The same one says I earn $100K a year more than you do. I WISH! Since I'm retired we KNOW that one is accurate don't we. This one also lets people "review" you anonymously. I gave you 2 positive reviews. It would have let me go the other direction too .........
All these lookup results are guaranteed 100% accurate - just like those online lyrics databases. :) :)
|
|
|
Post by Buck on Sept 14, 2022 3:29:37 GMT
Folks, my experience with 'journalism,' is never believe anything you read, hear or watch without verification by at least one other source, preferably one on the the opposite side of your preferred biases.
There's so little actual journalism done today, it's all rooting for your team, sloppy or just made up stuff.
I used to take print journalism at face value, 'till I became someone people wrote about. Then I realized that you cannot believe anything you read without further investigation.
|
|
|
Post by duckbarman on Sept 14, 2022 8:53:30 GMT
I fact checked this one - think it's probably legit...
|
|
|
Post by James on Sept 14, 2022 11:08:50 GMT
Folks, my experience with 'journalism,' is never believe anything you read, hear or watch without verification by at least one other source, preferably one on the the opposite side of your preferred biases. There's so little actual journalism done today, it's all rooting for your team, sloppy or just made up stuff. I used to take print journalism at face value, 'till I became someone people wrote about. Then I realized that you cannot believe anything you read without further investigation. I find www.factcheck.org to be a good place for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 15, 2022 1:37:48 GMT
Folks, my experience with 'journalism,' is never believe anything you read, hear or watch without verification by at least one other source, preferably one on the the opposite side of your preferred biases. There's so little actual journalism done today, it's all rooting for your team, sloppy or just made up stuff. I used to take print journalism at face value, 'till I became someone people wrote about. Then I realized that you cannot believe anything you read without further investigation. I find www.factcheck.org to be a good place for clarification. Have you "fact checked" factcheck.org ?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 15, 2022 2:31:58 GMT
Buried in the link below is part of the FCC's position on biased journalism on the services which it has regulation authority. Notice the caveats on filing a successful complaint. www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISMBroadcast Programming: Law and Policy on Specific Kinds of ProgrammingNews Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that βrigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.β The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.
|
|