Well, I don't know. I read the article when it was put up because of the subject line. I assumed it would be about or from a conservative with a conscience, and since I didn't understand how such an obvious anomaly could possibly exist, I felt I should read the article. ;)

>Snigger, snigger
>
>I just think that if somneone thinks an article is worth looking up there should be a brief synopsis or quote whither to whet the appetite. The reader has to access the site ythen do sometimes a ton of reading just to find out it bears no interest.
>
>>Like this?
>>
>>http://www.baekdal.com/articles/Management/internet-waste-time/
>>
>>ROFL....
>>
>>>>The person discussed previously worked in the Justice dept until several yrs ago:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Right, thanks. Tracy et al are often just throwing down URLs with no explanation of why one should bother looking at the site
>>>
>>>...
>>>>>>I'm sure some of you will come up with creative way's to shoot down the messenger:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?ex=1347076800&en=426a5f520b57279a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(might req registration)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wish when citing people would put just the merest hint of what the URL's about. You don't know whether to read it all or not to ascertain if it's interesting. Not just you, Perry - many just throw down the URL, with a quasi-cryptic title.