Rebecca Schuman: Most Gullible Journalist Ever?

By -
"For although Adler told me that during the controversy she received upward of 400 supportive emails per day—all of which she answered..."

Has Rebecca ever considered simply checking the number of minutes in a day? It is 1440. So let's say it takes two minutes to read each email, and one minute to respond. That is 1200. So, supposedly, Adler was sleeping four hours per day, and handling email the other 20.

I see.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy11:13 AM

    I do not deny that that number is possibly bogus, but:

    (a) No way does it take 3 minutes per email, if you have a ton flooding your inbox and just quickly identify if you should type "thx!" in response.

    (b) She didn't claim to keep up with it day by day, did she? Maybe her inbox got loaded up with 2000 emails over a 5-day period, and she worked it off over the course of the next month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:50 AM

      Thx!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:32 PM

      Keep in mind that Bob is a master at skimming an email and responding in the shortest manner possible. I know this because my emails take at least 4 minutes to read, yet Bob always responds. ;)

      Delete
    3. gcallah5:40 PM

      Thx!

      Delete
    4. gcallah5:46 PM

      Of course, my point being, if she was just robotically sending out "Thx!" then of course she could respond to hundreds of emails a day.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more