Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I think the article may be suffering from either poor journo wording or translation issues.
The paper is far better reading.
Cheers
|
I agree. I had a quick read of the paper late last night. It's far clearer when it comes to their premises, methodologies and observations. It's very much apparent that the journos have added their "two bits" to the interpretation of what was actually done and what was conveyed to them.
You know, I just wish for once, that journalist would report things factually and in a completely "uninterpreted" manner.