Three-quarters of a point for your last post, Mark. I was following your comments, and was pretty much in agreement until your last paragraph.
You make it clear that you are primarily a Clinton supporter, and that you mostly agree with the news media's bias. Then, you go on to criticize those who express a differing view, calling it "vitriol."
Let me suggest to you that you just don't like hearing opinions that differ from yours; similarly, many of us who post here don't appreciate the constant stream of left-leaning spin that is called "news" by the major media, CNBC included. Criticizing that leftist bias is not "vitriol," it is criticism.
I do agree that the views on this thread can, and probably have, resulted in some minor changes (or at least recognition of other viewpoints) in CNBC's presentations. Whether or not Ted David was "driven away" as you contend remains to be seen. I remember some long spells between his posts in the past, and I doubt he is of such weak charactor to be very concerned by any of the posts on this thread. I can remember only two things that seemed to result in forceful posts from him: 1) asking him to comment on or justify his co-worker's actions, and 2) refusal to allow him to prevent people from posting their opinions on a subject CNBC was devoting too much time to.
Bottom line, Mark, is that this thread is open to comments from lots of different people. There's no rule that says posts must fit your view of the world.
There. Other than this, I thought your post was quite well done, and I appreciated your calm tone in expressing your opinion, unlike many others who don't like what they may read here.
Have a good 'un,
jim |
