You’ve had plenty of time to check out the New Yorker article and admit that this is not a fake story but you would rather continue playing games. Your post history reflects this behavior.
Holy shit, guy, he points out that you posted a notoriously garbage source and you immediately jump to personal attacks. I don’t care what his post history looks like, he’s correct. Jezebel is a rag that posts garbage, more often laughably false than remotely true. Regardless whether this particular story is true or not, find better sources.
I think you misunderstood my original comment. I was criticizing the source rather than the story itself. No, I don’t think the New Yorker article is fake news.
It’s always a good idea to use a more neutral but still credible source.
I have very little doubt that you would have said the exact same thing you said initially if I had posted the New Yorker article instead.
I promise you I wouldn’t, Jezebel is the equivalent of Breitbart. (Media matters too)
I’ve seen your post history.
So?
You’ve had plenty of time to check out the New Yorker article and admit that this is not a fake story but you would rather continue playing games. Your post history reflects this behavior.
Holy shit, guy, he points out that you posted a notoriously garbage source and you immediately jump to personal attacks. I don’t care what his post history looks like, he’s correct. Jezebel is a rag that posts garbage, more often laughably false than remotely true. Regardless whether this particular story is true or not, find better sources.
I didn’t make any personal attacks.
I think you misunderstood my original comment. I was criticizing the source rather than the story itself. No, I don’t think the New Yorker article is fake news.
Your original comment:
Is it fake news or a real story? Make up your mind.
It’s a Schrodinger’s story. Fake on Jezebel, real on the New Yorker.