[QUOTE=only_human;355821][URL="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/"]The L.A. Times won’t publish letters from climate deniers[/URL] [noparse][salon.com][/noparse][/QUOTE]

Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy? Do they similarly need to explain that "we do not publish letters from gravity deniers"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356585]Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy? Do they similarly need to explain that "we do not publish letters from gravity deniers"?[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, you come across a bit like a "wacko".

Are you, personally, familiar with the term "manage the message"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356585]Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy? Do they similarly need to explain that "we do not publish letters from gravity deniers"?[/QUOTE]I don't know. There is a petition in the works to get several other newspapers to act the same ([URL="http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/la-times-refuses-publish-climate-denial-will-newspapers/"]LA Times Refuses To Publish Climate Denial, Will Other Newspapers?[/URL]). That has a odor of politics though. I failed to find something that I'd read recently about the shrinking and shuttering of science coverage in newspapers but that isn't really on the topic of opinion letters in the newspapers anyway. Newspapers are failing to inform on science. If there was a political or pecuniary purpose to denying gravity, there would be plenty of denial of it in newspapers.

:goodposting:[B]![/B]

[QUOTE=chalsall;356586]In my opinion, you come across a bit like a "wacko".[/QUOTE]

And another attempt at humor is lost on the reading-comprehensionless.

(I'm not sure if Kieren's ! is a reference to this, or some other exclamatory item.)

My reference landed in proper relation to Ross's post just above it. My endorsement applied to his statement that-
[QUOTE]Newspapers are failing to inform on science. If there was a political or pecuniary purpose to denying gravity, there would be plenty of denial of it in newspapers.[/QUOTE]
and to his post in general. I was quite amused by the second sentence quoted above.

[QUOTE=kladner;356625]My reference landed in proper relation to Ross's post just above it. My endorsement applied to his statement that-

and to his post in general. I was quite amused by the second sentence quoted above.[/QUOTE]Thank you.

Well, contrary to the global warming, the gravity is true... There are however, "deniers" of its cause, like some guys are blaming the thermodynamics, so all my playing cards castle, built in years of school, about "the 4 forces, blah blah" is going to collapse :smile:...

Same as some people don't deny the global warming, but its causes, and most of them deny its consequences. Assuming is so. And so what? For the most of the world this may be actually good...

[QUOTE=LaurV;356639]Well, contrary to the global warming, the gravity is true...[/QUOTE]

So what is your position on the controversy as to whether the ocean level is actually rising?

Well, I actually came to this forum for math/gimps/numbers-related stuff... I respect some people here, and I got some people to respect me, some not to.

Don't make me get banned... :razz:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356585]Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy?[/quote]It needed to be announced because it was a [i]change[/i] in LA Times policy. They previously had not screened out letters that were counterfactual about this particular subject.