3 ms·
I'm not sure I should engage here, but since I submitted the article and you seem to have a big problem with it and consider it "spam" I'll just say: 1) I have
by _dps 9y ago
I'm not sure I should engage here, but since I submitted the article and you seem to have a big problem with it and consider it "spam" I'll just say:
1) I have no agenda to promote the NYT (feel free to check my submission history)
2) I personally have never seen anything like a "spamming" effort with respect to NYT articles here. If you have, perhaps consider it was a transient cluster of articles (which can happen from time to time for entirely benign reasons)
I'm sorry the article frustrated you, and I think it's fine to point out possible problems with cited studies.
- hmwhy 9y agoI think you have every right to engage—not least because I started my response emotionally to begin with (and thinking why there are so many "good" NYT articles all the time). I honestly did not mean to offend you in particular and, given what you said, I really am regretting having made an emotional response without considering and qualifying all parts of my arguments now—I did not consider the possibility that one may or may not have considered (and/or may or may not have the technical insights into) all the references in the article when I commented. I would have shared something that I think is interesting without understanding all parts of it. Please accept my sincere apology for lumping everyone together (in fact, maybe there really isn't anyone who want to promote articles and people just happen to read NYT more often than any other sources), and I really didn't meant to offend you by venting my frustration. :( EDIT: typo. Clarification.
- _dps 9y agoNo offense taken — and I think you bring up a good point about the study. Have a good day :)