If you don't trust the NYT to report that there's no traffic accurately, how can you then trust them to confirm the backup you're projecting?

Good Game.

Giant win!!

It was touch and go there for a moment in the second half thought.

hashfanatic, it sounds like you misunderstand Karol's point.

Karol is not establishing that she "trusts" the NY Times to "confirm" anything.

All she's saying is she subscribes to the Murphy's Law of "knock on wood."

Perhaps, BBIAS, what it "sounded" like to you had no relevance to the point I was trying to convey, and the concepts of Murphy's Law and superstitions like knocking on wood have nothing to do with each other anyway.

If the referenced article had not been published anywhere else but the New York Times, would Karol have been likely to have commented on it in the first place? I think not.

Now, anyone who believes the Iowa caucuses are truly reflective of the mood of the nation has a few screws loose, and I took issue with many of the points in the article, particularly the first half of it.

And I understand Karol's "point", BBIAS. In fact, if it were to posed under a relevant context, I might feel led to agree with it.

But why would anyone base their premise on such weak speculation to prove their point, unless the underlying motive was to lead the reader to read a subpar article, to undermine the credibility of the publication for the duration of the election cycle?

hashfanatic wrote;
"what it 'sounded' like to you had no relevance to the point I was trying to convey,"
----------------

hashfanatic,

I wasn't responding to the point you were "trying to convey"; rather, I was responding to the point that you DID convey.

Sounds like Karol really got under your skin with this post.
If she had found this article in the Washington Post, LA Times, CNN.com, The Nation, etc., I'm certain she would have posted it.

By the way, I think most people would submit that "knock on wood" is a form of Murphy's Law.

I swear, you should find something other than hash to become fanatical about.

Did you know that the moniker "hashfanatic" has absolutely no reference to hashish, a drug I have never personally tried?

No, I guess you didn't. I just figured you might want to work with the facts for a change.

"Sounds like Karol really got under your skin with this post."

Not really, just the particular aspect of it that I mentioned, and even that didn't exactly keep me awake last night.

I just thought it was a very interesting angle to the post, and, no, I don't think the other publications would have been as likely to have been chosen.

With Bill Kristol on board at the "Old Gray Lady", there's even more impetus to discredit the newspaper of record, simply to arouse interest and bring further attention to its existence.

They aren't exactly doing well, you know.