As long as the facts are present and interpreted correctly (ie., not twisted horribly to become completely wrong, ala Brit Hume), the reporting should not be dismissed.

The key words are "present and interpreted correctly." My reply to him details that a bit more.

This is beyond obvious, it seems, to anyone with whom I've ever discussed this issue . . . except you. You are, sir, a complete outlier, a money apologist/denier.


Being governed by evidence has its benefits, I suppose. The claims have never held water.