Comments on: Time’s Worst Website http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/ Perspectives on advertising, marketing, branding, and consumerism Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:01:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Tone http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Tone Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:50:52 +0000 http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/#comment-29 "Time, normally a trusted source of objective news" ... Beware (or be aware) that many of our "trusted media sources", incl. NY Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are anything but objective. Many in fact have an agenda. (Ever wonder why major media is so biased against the war, reporting all the negative aspects, but rarely do we hear of the schools, hospitals, or water processing plants that have been built the past few years. Just talk to a soldier returning from Iraq - confused by the stories being reported). If we were to take CNN's Wolf Blitzer to heart, we'd be anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights screaming liberals. It's unfortunate that many I speak with believe what they hear and read in the news is the unbiased truth. The more our country as a whole (and we as individuals) practice the "separation of church and state", the harder it is to discern the truth. (Discernment comes from the Spirit of He who we are attempting to separate ourselves from). Tone “Time, normally a trusted source of objective news” …
Beware (or be aware) that many of our “trusted media sources”, incl. NY Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are anything but objective. Many in fact have an agenda. (Ever wonder why major media is so biased against the war, reporting all the negative aspects, but rarely do we hear of the schools, hospitals, or water processing plants that have been built the past few years. Just talk to a soldier returning from Iraq – confused by the stories being reported).
If we were to take CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to heart, we’d be anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights screaming liberals. It’s unfortunate that many I speak with believe what they hear and read in the news is the unbiased truth. The more our country as a whole (and we as individuals) practice the “separation of church and state”, the harder it is to discern the truth. (Discernment comes from the Spirit of He who we are attempting to separate ourselves from). Tone

]]> By: Andy Didyk http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Andy Didyk Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:32:05 +0000 http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/#comment-22 Alan, I couldn't agree with you more without sounding like I didn't have a mind of my own. Marriage is definitely as much work as play, and compatibility on its own may provide for some good times, but little else in terms of keeping the marriage alive, vibrant, and healthy. I still hold my same feelings about terrible journalism employed by Time. I've sent a letter to the editor, and am awaiting a reply. Peace back to you. --Andy Alan,

I couldn’t agree with you more without sounding like I didn’t have a mind of my own. Marriage is definitely as much work as play, and compatibility on its own may provide for some good times, but little else in terms of keeping the marriage alive, vibrant, and healthy.

I still hold my same feelings about terrible journalism employed by Time. I’ve sent a letter to the editor, and am awaiting a reply.

Peace back to you.

–Andy

]]> By: + Alan http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/comment-page-1/#comment-21 + Alan Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:58:49 +0000 http://www.andydidyk.com/2007/07/13/times-worst-website/#comment-21 Hey mon - I haven't read this article and don't know about this guy's biases. I will say that I believe eHarmony's philosophy of what makes for a good marital relationship is dangerous and not very healthy. It sounds good on the surface but it puts far too much weight on "points of compatibility" - as if these were what make a relationship possible for the long haul. See, our problem is that we've just not found someone in this way, if we did, we'd "stay in love" with them. Pardone moi, but bullshit. What we've forgotten is commitment and that "love" in a marriage is about a choice. We have bought (hook, line and sinker) the whole "romantic love" theory of relationships. We want a "best friend" who's just like us. We don't want to have to work at marriage or love. If we have to do that, we see it as somehow less than what it ideally is supposed to be. The whole eHarmony thing helps perpetuate that in my mind. I could, as you well know, go on and on an on, but I think that's enough for now. Wheew. Peace to you my brutha! Hey mon – I haven’t read this article and don’t know about this guy’s biases. I will say that I believe eHarmony’s philosophy of what makes for a good marital relationship is dangerous and not very healthy. It sounds good on the surface but it puts far too much weight on “points of compatibility” – as if these were what make a relationship possible for the long haul. See, our problem is that we’ve just not found someone in this way, if we did, we’d “stay in love” with them. Pardone moi, but bullshit.

What we’ve forgotten is commitment and that “love” in a marriage is about a choice. We have bought (hook, line and sinker) the whole “romantic love” theory of relationships. We want a “best friend” who’s just like us. We don’t want to have to work at marriage or love. If we have to do that, we see it as somehow less than what it ideally is supposed to be. The whole eHarmony thing helps perpetuate that in my mind. I could, as you well know, go on and on an on, but I think that’s enough for now. Wheew. Peace to you my brutha!

]]>