3 ms·
You've done nothing to substantiate that charge of being a shill short of pointing out the very relationship he himself disclosed. As to the claim on columnist
by robg 13y ago
You've done nothing to substantiate that charge of being a shill short of pointing out the very relationship he himself disclosed.
As to the claim on columnists all being "hacks", I have little doubt that every single columnist at the NY Times has been called that or worse in their tenure by some segment of their audience. Saying Person X is a "hack" (or troll or asshat) has no place in rational dialogue. It's a non sequitur. Stick to what's being said and dispute that. In this case, that would be a matter of arguing that HireArt is not part of some broad new trend in hiring and being hired. You are very far from arguing contra Friedman.
I don't know you. All I know is one ad hominem comment you made and continue to defend. That's a problem for this community and indeed any community that aspires toward rationality. What you continue to be (and this community, even) is only up to you (and us). That you assume I'm throwing a "tantrum" and that I disagree with you on Friedman won't ever get you (or us) there.
- ebbv 13y agoOk clearly my effort is wasted on you. You are not even reading what I'm saying. So just a couple quick points: 1) Just because someone discloses something doesn't make it ethical / not shilling. 2) I (and others) are not just calling Friedman a hack and leaving it at that as you seem to insist we are. We are calling him a hack and backing it up with evidence -- as I have said repeatedly, and I have pointed you to the evidence. It absolutely does have a place in rational dialogue. You pay lip service to being interested in discussion, but your behavior indicates you are not at all interested as I have attempted to engage you repeatedly and you pay it no heed whatsoever.