On Monday, August 10, 2020, 02:39:14 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0
   <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:

   On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
   jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
   >
   >    On Monday, August 10, 2020, 11:39:40 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi
   2.0 <[2]punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
   >
   >  On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 06:33:24 +0000 (UTC)
   > jim bell <[3]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
   >
   > Yet again, you foolishly come to conclusions with no support at all.

       Not foolishly at all.
   >> I am not "cheering" anything.  I post cites to articles that I think
   Cypherpunks would find interesting.  This means that I both cite "good
   news" and "bad news" issues. (Or, possibly, "news" that is neither
   "good" nor "bad".)
    >   And who cares about 'news' that are not 'good' nor 'bad'? Those
   'news' would be pretty irrelevant by definition. They would NOT be
   news.
   I use the term "news" as a general term.  Don't write more into that
   word than is needed.
    >   The stuff you link is not 'news' but biased propaganda, regardless
   of you agreeing with the propaganda or not. If you don't understand
   what 'journalism' is and what sort of garbage the journos you link
   write, then you need to...get a better grasp of reality.
   Just because YOU call something "propaganda" doesn't mean that it isn't
   something that we might want to pay some attention to.  Even
   "propaganda" can contain information.  Have you ever heard of a
   "reverse barometer"?
                    Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   2. mailto:punks@tfwno.gf
   3. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com