If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Aladdin, you might want to have a look at this thread
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
But I've gotta admit I found the actual iPhone story funnier. They found the iPhone loses reception when held a particular way (i.e. the way any left-handed person would hold it when making a call). And their advise to customers looking for it to be fixed? "Don't hold it like that." Great customer service.
Apple's solution? Deny the problem exists....
Regarding the article, all too often journos rely solely on the likes of Twitter and Wikipedia to find stories, which speaks volumes for the state of the industry...
http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/
Does the risk of cancer increase or decrease or do they cancel one another out?
Perhaps I should set up a fake Twitter account under the name of some health professional they'd know about. I might get a story run about it on their website.
:d
Maybe we should all keep a 'points system' to stay safe. Last week a woman had two drinks (-2) and watched 6 hours of telly (-6) but ate 3 watermelons (+3) and breastfed a baby for 7 hours (+7). Grand total +2, which means no cancer
Are they "according to the Daily Mail" ?
I have not the time,or inclination,to go through them all but I was of the belief that they were reports and not editorials.
Based on the selected few I saw, the claims should be rightly attributed to the modern day Divinity of "research scientists", should they not ?
No, they shouldn't. There's a massive difference between the genuine research, and the sensationalist interpretation of said research. Scientists will test the affect of huge numbers of chemicals on cancer in mice. Many of these chemicals will be in food, either naturally or as part of various additives. To then make this ridiculous leap to these foodstuffs curing or causing cancer (even if they put "may" at the start) is hugely unscientific and deliberately sensationalist.
Do you blame the postman for your junk mail ?
I would do if he didn't actually give it to me, but instead read it and just told me the jist of it, yes.
Apparently there are laws against that sort of thing.
Nevertheless, sloth is said to be one of the seven deadly sins. Beware.
Eh, WTF, do you twitter that kind of stuff?
Does the postman read your mail, misinterpret it, then write it in a different more sensationalist way before sticking it through your letter box.
If not then that a shit analogy.
Come on now, admit it, you have not read your junk mail, have you ?
I suspect you threw it in the bin unopened, assuming you knew what the contents were, didn't you ?
If I am mistaken, could you give me some examples to help me out ?
There are people out there who claim the Earth is flat. If a national newspaper chose print such a claim in the front page giving it the same relevance and reverence in its pages as it devotes to real, credible and important stories, then the said newspaper is de facto passing off such story as credible.
That's why the Mail is so fucking full of shit and is such an indescribably piss-poor rag.
The qualities you attribute to the Mail may be true but which reports and/or claims from the list given are you referring to ?
That stuff was for the personal consumption of a recent sparring partner of yours.
I think he is intelligent enough to digest the contents.
I suspect that you smoke the funny tobacco before posting on here.
I list most of your posts as examples of that.
Although when Bill Gates has 800 Twitter accounts, even the most stupid and lazy of Mail journalists will start asking questions.