Please look at the publication date before accusing them of lying. The article I linked was published April 3, 2024. VDARE was charged in September 2025 (and suspended work due to the ruinous financial cost of the prosecution in July 2024). So which facts is my article lying about? Or are you simply presuming that the accusation must be true, despite no verdict yet?
Your article mischaracterizes the facts in a way that I sincerely believe could only have been a result of a dishonest party. You might claim that it's the VDARE fraudsters who lied and the publication didn't apply any diligence into actually reading the charges filed or investigating, and simply credulously repeated a story that was contradicted by the facts at the time of their writing. However you want to frame it, there's a kernel of deceit.
> the publication didn't apply any diligence into actually reading the charges filed or investigating
When that article was published, there were no charges filed. It was more than a year later that they were charged. And I'll ask again: which facts were false or mischaracterized? Can you be specific?
The essence of the article I linked was that:
1) Letitia's investigation was drawn out and financially ruinous.
2) She demanded all of their email records, which would have doxxed their writers.
3) The Brimelows are being investigated for using funds donated to their charity for personal expenses, which they deny.
The CNN article, as far as I could tell, contradicts none of these points. But perhaps I missed something?
Twice I've asked you which facts the article is lying about, and twice you've refused to answer, instead merely rephrasing your accusation ("mischaracterizes the facts").
Perhaps I am incapable of comprehending truth, but for the sake of others reading this, can you tell them what precisely the lies were?
That's an interesting thing, but all the same, Plato's myths aren't history in any sense, and mistaking them for that is not an error of degree but of type.
Plato was neither a historian nor an archeologist, he had no way to know anything about the remote past. He made up and repeated myths, which you can impute whatever meanings you like onto, but you should try not to mistake them for a history even if they accidentally fit cherry-picked examples.
The ants who fell in died after a while, but the story is really about how they survived to form a colony close to a million through survival by cannibalism.
If you've learned even a little about the history of Rome then you'll quickly bump into SPQR, Mary Beard's recent popular, and very good book on the Romans it titled "SPQR", in the city of Rome you'll see SPQR used all over, in films when Romans are depicted, SPQR is always there. While not everyone will have a background where it's familiar, it's also not at all obscure. If you're not familiar with the Romans you won't know, but lots of people like to learn about the ancient past since it's really interesting to some types.
Time travel was the most important invention of the 1800s too, but that goes to show how bad resolving the temporal paradox issue is, now that entire history is gone.
Orwell was an anti-Communist, though especially anti Stalinist. He fell into the POUM, he didn't choose them, "I knew that I was serving in something called the POUM. (I had only joined the POUM militia rather than any other because I happened to arrive in Barcelona with ILP papers), but I did not realize that there were serious differences between the political parties."
He actually said "As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." After the Stalinists illegalized the POUM, killed and tortured Orwell's friends and tried to kill him, forcing him flee Spain, his view on Communism grew ever more dim, and after that he grew more strongly anti-Communist than his earlier anti-Fascism.
Beautiful turnaround if those figures are reliable, but like Munger calls them, EBITDA tends to bullshit metrics derived by cobbling up bullshit to hide that a company is losing cash.
Just like Figma booking $700M in 2023 profits which was only possible because of the $1b Adobe breakup fee. Proceeded to lose $732m on $749m in revenues the very next year.
reply