Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Intetional ambiguity?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 11:57 AM
Original message
Intetional ambiguity?
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 12:12 PM by originalpckelly
http://www.bridgepub.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. You may reference the NYTCo's own website to prove this lie wrong:
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 12:01 PM by originalpckelly
http://www.nytco.com/company/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's not what it's saying
It's saying that they publish Hubbard, whose books were on the NYTimes besteseller list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. it is just very poorly worded...but yeah, they
don't claim to publish the Times.

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. It's intentionally ambigous...
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 12:15 PM by originalpckelly
They've claimed that Hubbard had multiple degrees in nuclear physics, not a lick of it is true.

http://www.bridgepub.com/lronhubbard/index.vm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. and I have six pack abs...
under all this fat...

I know what they are up to...and while it is sleazy, they can still claim that it is 'correct'

sP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beausoleil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Intentionally ambiguous?
Can be read either way and I'll bet they knew that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. You should go to a Scientology meeting. You could get your
thoughts back to normal... :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC