Posted by Margaret (209.204.107.194) on August 09, 2003 at 13:36:41:
In Reply to: What Crazy Type Would Do This? posted by The4Blob (12.108.99.30) on August 08, 2003 at 09:27:32:
It is a sad but unfortunate fact of life, the WSJ, being a for-profit business, is, just like any other for-profit business, always looking for new businees to increase profite, and because it is one of the most boring paper in the world, it hires journalists willing to create and make up "sensationalism" in order to attract non-financial readers (like me once in a while).
As a result, it ends up degrading itself and lowering itself to the ranks of "The National Enquirer". In other words, never believe everything you read. It is naive to do so.
Even the 'scientific' or 'financial' journalists, because they are all competing with each other job-wise to get the most 'interesting eye-catching' story, end up resorting to far-fetched 'heard it from someone, so although they're lying, I can at least use it in the story and if caught - I can always say, well, it wasn't me who said it" , as a result degrading their credibility and accuracy and integrity.
I'll never forget one time, reading a book on the 'Ice Man' (from Italian Alps), I remembered exactly what the pitures looked like, only to later on shockingly read in the Scientic American (or Discover- I forgot which) it had this artical about this other Ice Age man from China. Sure enough, guess which piture it had next to it - the exact picture of the man from ITALY. What a total crock.
Again, just because it's scientific or financial, does not mean they are immune all the way from simple errors to sensationalism.
Never beleive what you read. 70-99% of all 'respected' journalists are paid to LIE.
> A front-page story in the Wall Street Journal today concerns women and the unhealthy torture they are putting their feet through just to fit in the extremely narrow, pointy-toe, high-heeled shoes/boots that are popular in some circles right now. They are HVIING THEIR TOES SURGICALLY SHORTENED,
> I say only an average-to-unhealthy Type 3 would be this nuts. Maybe a sexual Type 1 who will do ANYTHING to fit her own ideas of "perfection." Type 2 is a possibility if they would do anything to please whatever who whoever. As for 4s, I would not do something like this and would pride myself on being the only woman with sensible loafers in a room full of Manilo Blahniks (then, of course, I'd be furious when the men ignored me!) But I GUESS a Type 4 might do this and find the pain "curious" or maybe satisfying in a masochistic way.
> I am sure that type 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 would not wear these. They do not have that need to be passively validated by others (or themselves in the case of 1s!)