I see, you did seem to imply that I implied that NYT/Pearl (pg favors the former when it comes to possible "bad actors") were being dishonest. I think it's an

I see, you did seem to imply that I implied that NYT/Pearl (pg favors the former when it comes to possible "bad actors") were being dishonest. I think it's an important lesson to learn how to discern whether articles are "paid marketing" or "content marketing" (or biased in other ways). Not many people know how to do this kind of critical thinking -- look at the "fake news" debacle (if anything, there is a certain blind trust people place in authority figures like the NYT). The transparency (or lack thereof) of this particular article is an important observation to note.