Of course the quote is "accurate" -- the text appears in the article. But here we are purportedly discussing science journalism and we yet get troglodytic comments like that. I see no refutation of the article from you or anyone else. Your comment is pure emo and of no value whatsoever.
Of course the quote is "accurate" -- the text appears in the article. But here we are purportedly discussing science journalism and we yet get troglodytic comments like that. I see no refutation of the article from you or anyone else. Your comment is pure emo and of no value whatsoever.
I won't respond further.
I think it's pretty clear that the onus of showing evidence is on the one with the extraordinary claim.