Re: bMoA doesn't believe Blumenthal/Norton/Khalek are straight. (and yes, I HAVE read the piece before Archived Message
Posted by brooks  on December 17, 2019, 8:19 am, in reply to "bMoA doesn't believe Blumenthal/Norton/Khalek are straight. (and yes, I HAVE read the piece before" |
Why question the sincerity of consistently excellent and courageous journalism? MoA should take it on its own merits and dispute the facts and arguments if they can - since they don't, I assume they either can't or don't disagree with it - and leave this kind of thing to gossip columnists. It's a huge distraction from the issues.
|
| Message Thread:
- bMoA doesn't believe Blumenthal/Norton/Khalek are straight. (and yes, I HAVE read the piece before - RhG December 17, 2019, 7:57 am
- Re: bMoA doesn't believe Blumenthal/Norton/Khalek are straight. (and yes, I HAVE read the piece before - brooks December 17, 2019, 8:19 am
- Only consistent since the conversion, apparently, b. T'other b gives some chapter and verse. Worth - RhG December 17, 2019, 9:23 am
- Re: Only consistent since the conversion, apparently, b. T'other b gives some chapter and verse. Worth - margo December 17, 2019, 11:21 am
- There is indeed absolutely no room for naivety; especially in hacks. And the call that Vanessa and - RhG December 17, 2019, 11:50 am
- Re: Only consistent since the conversion, apparently, b. T'other b gives some chapter and verse. Worth - brooks December 17, 2019, 12:18 pm
- Re: Only consistent since the conversion, apparently, b. T'other b gives some chapter and verse. Worth - Tomski December 17, 2019, 12:42 pm
- It's not rocket science - Poster123 December 17, 2019, 1:11 pm
|
|