• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No more aspartame in Diet Pepsi

Anyone with the intellectual curiosity to look something up on the Internet is just an idiot unworthy of Goo's time.

Of course as is typically the case on here, I never said anything remotely close to that.

I would say that people with a little bit of knowledge from things they have read typically are ridiculously confident to an unwarranted degree about what they think they have learned. This thread, and deck's posts in particular, has been a study in itself of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
If you really think pushing anything synthetic into your body is a good thing there's zero point to having this conversation. The caffiene alone results in dehydratiion. You're sounding like one of those 1950s cigarette commercials that say that eight out of 10 doctors recommend Camel cigarettes to the other brands.
 
Of course as is typically the case on here, I never said anything remotely close to that.

I would say that people with a little bit of knowledge from things they have read typically are ridiculously confident to an unwarranted degree about what they think they have learned. This thread, and deck's posts in particular, has been a study in itself of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The derision with which you refer to Google speaks for itself.

Most current and former journalists are more than capable of discerning what information is good and what is bad in most Internet searches. And how to find the most credible information.
 
Of course as is typically the case on here, I never said anything remotely close to that.

I would say that people with a little bit of knowledge from things they have read typically are ridiculously confident to an unwarranted degree about what they think they have learned. This thread, and deck's posts in particular, has been a study in itself of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I would debate you under the table of your choosing on any topic.
 
The double negative at the bottom is confusing me. Are Luckies pro-cough?
I think it's just missing an "and". Protection against irritation and against cough. That's how I read it anyway. (THIS IS WHY YOU NEED EDITORS, LUCKY STRIKE!)
 
Back
Top