Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (112604)	5/5/2005 4:44:03 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 793914

That hardcore Trekkie/Pedophilia thing is getting much more attention than what should really be deserved for a piece of essentially hastily incomplete journalism. Upon hearing the one "juicy factoid", LATimes ran with it, yet could/should have added some additional (expert-obtained) profile points. A "typical profile" of a randomly specific behaviour (deviant or not-so-much) will have many pattern points ... i.e. may wear plastic Vulcan ears + eats rhubarb 2-3 times/week + molested as child +... etc... This was just throwing in a "one-liner" for the eyeball factor; shoddy "reporting". It's not much different than throwing out "a factoid" about sexual proclivities of "legendary" Catholic girls, when the specific Catholic chix meant in question +also+ lived at home until 32, wore band-aids from playing cello, and watched a lot of Jerry Springer. That's a much different sexual animal than the standard issue model. LATimes should have either chopped that part or (preferrably) explored more in-depth, because the chop itself is not very useful, except for pandering papers. Oh, wait a second. I get it now.... Nevermind.