(Total Views: 750)
Posted On: 08/05/2020 8:47:41 AM
Post# of 153905
Re: crazyjogger925 #47181
Haven't read the article on it's totality but this part has one problem: no reference to the science whatsoever.
Not as serious article and slanted in that is portraying NP as a "promoter".
What about the 100's of scientific papers supporting the moa? Any mention ??
However, it might end up being positive in that WSJ has a large readership and will pick the interest of quite a few potential investors.
But, in general, not the kind of DD that one would expect from a serious newspaper.
Not as serious article and slanted in that is portraying NP as a "promoter".
What about the 100's of scientific papers supporting the moa? Any mention ??
However, it might end up being positive in that WSJ has a large readership and will pick the interest of quite a few potential investors.
But, in general, not the kind of DD that one would expect from a serious newspaper.
(3)
(0)
