Oh, good, a link. To my surprise, NYT let me read it without dinking me to subscribe (I'm trying to cut down). Mary Baine Campbell, you are right about Doud's piece. Sad to see folks here doing what they love pointing fingers at others for doing: jumping to conclusions about something before taking the time to read and evaluate it. No,…
Oh, good, a link. To my surprise, NYT let me read it without dinking me to subscribe (I'm trying to cut down). Mary Baine Campbell, you are right about Doud's piece. Sad to see folks here doing what they love pointing fingers at others for doing: jumping to conclusions about something before taking the time to read and evaluate it. No, Doud's piece is not deep, nor does it need to be. Sometimes writers get so caught up in being "deep" that they bury the simple point at the core of things. Doud didn't do that. She laid it out plain and square. For crying out loud, folks, read it and let go of your intellectual purity.
Oh, good, a link. To my surprise, NYT let me read it without dinking me to subscribe (I'm trying to cut down). Mary Baine Campbell, you are right about Doud's piece. Sad to see folks here doing what they love pointing fingers at others for doing: jumping to conclusions about something before taking the time to read and evaluate it. No, Doud's piece is not deep, nor does it need to be. Sometimes writers get so caught up in being "deep" that they bury the simple point at the core of things. Doud didn't do that. She laid it out plain and square. For crying out loud, folks, read it and let go of your intellectual purity.