Comments on: Letters To The Editor http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/02/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-3/ Thu, 24 May 2012 03:30:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: N http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/02/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-3/comment-page-1/#comment-2373 N Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:54:47 +0000 http://www.newuniversity.org/?p=11475#comment-2373 If this really happened at the volleyball game, I'm personally embarrassed. If this really happened at the volleyball game, I’m personally embarrassed.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/02/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-3/comment-page-1/#comment-2350 anonymous Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:36:57 +0000 http://www.newuniversity.org/?p=11475#comment-2350 "Point: most economists agree" <--- for someone so angry, Mr. Vega really doesn't have much of an opinion of his own. Most economists - at least those that schooled under the umbrella of "modern finance" - have had a "consensus" for everything and they're frequently (re: almost always) wrong. See: U.S. housing bubble, Black Monday, LTCM, S&L crisis, so on. For a letter to the editor only demanding fairness and facts, what is the point of rebutting an opinion with the opinions of other experts? Either the author was uninformed/unfair/deceptive/whatever OR... you just disagree with him and want to argue - and perhaps appear righteous to veil your attack. Are you getting your hands dirty or calling foul play? You can't have it both ways. 90% of the articles in the New U Opinion would get hammered under serious journalistic standards. Why did Mr. Vega chose Moore's (and why did the editors chose to publish someone with such an annoying, self-righteous tone), which was probably in the 90th percentile - as far as critical political editorials? I could give him several articles (probably every week) that are just flat out wrong and/or intentionally misleading and he would not be able to tell the difference. Instead, he nits over an article that does not even try to say much. I call BS. “Point: most economists agree” <— for someone so angry, Mr. Vega really doesn't have much of an opinion of his own. Most economists – at least those that schooled under the umbrella of "modern finance" – have had a "consensus" for everything and they're frequently (re: almost always) wrong. See: U.S. housing bubble, Black Monday, LTCM, S&L crisis, so on.

For a letter to the editor only demanding fairness and facts, what is the point of rebutting an opinion with the opinions of other experts? Either the author was uninformed/unfair/deceptive/whatever OR… you just disagree with him and want to argue – and perhaps appear righteous to veil your attack. Are you getting your hands dirty or calling foul play? You can't have it both ways.

90% of the articles in the New U Opinion would get hammered under serious journalistic standards. Why did Mr. Vega chose Moore's (and why did the editors chose to publish someone with such an annoying, self-righteous tone), which was probably in the 90th percentile – as far as critical political editorials? I could give him several articles (probably every week) that are just flat out wrong and/or intentionally misleading and he would not be able to tell the difference. Instead, he nits over an article that does not even try to say much. I call BS.

]]>