Exactly. The New Yorker article assumed, correctly, that in the Globe’s eyes, “too weak” in corroboration (i.e., no participation from the woman the kiss happened to) means “too weak” as a publishable fact. There is no real distinction.

Hmm.

I’ll take “guy who knows things” shtick over your “performative outrage” shtick any day of the week, thanks.  

I don’t know... with all the crazy anti-science rhetoric and lies becoming so widespread and commonplace (people drinking bleach and others not taking vaccines). Maybe we need folks like Neil to talk more not less.

Shut... the fuck up!!

I’d kinda prefer you take your own advice instead of attacking one of the few people in the world with a platform, who’s actually trying to educate and make people smarter so maybe this sad dystopia we’re heading for can be averted.

Hard disagree. This country is woefully uninformed about science, and that leads to the anti-vaccination movement and climate change denials, among many other problems. NDT is obviously being pedantic with this, but it draws attention to being informed and accurate about representation of physics principles.

Counterpoint: NDT has taught me many things, and Jack Crosbie has not enriched my life in literally any conceivable way.

He just taught me that water crystals have six-fold symmetry. That probably wouldn’t have happened without his input. I don’t know. Learning stuff can be kind of good.

Mueller indicted tons of people for tons of things. When it comes to specifically conspiracy charges, there are 2 reasons why there are likely no indictments. 1) It’s an incredibly high bar to prosecute conspiracy, effectively requiring documented proof, knowledge of a crime, etc etc, and 2) We already knew Mueller…