> You don't need microfilm to read the NY Times; the entire archive is available on their website.
This was not the case when I did this thirty years ago.
> You read ~1800 newspapers from 100 years ago?
I concur with your observation that if you stop reading that sentence after the first few words, it makes less sense than if you read the whole sentence.
> Anyway, can you provide a basis that substantiates any claim in the parent?
I already did.
> I don't mean one link to one article
August 13, 1918 NY Times front page - article headline "Red leaders flee, reach Kronstadt, entire Bolshevist government escaping from Moscow". Of course history shows us that the Bolshevist government did not collapse in August 1918.
> there is nothing like HN for unsubstantiated claims about Russia like the parent, which are ceaseless
I have received ceaseless upvotes for my comments on the lies the Times has told about Russia over the past century, and I wish to thank the товарищи who gave them to me - from wherever they are in the world.
This was not the case when I did this thirty years ago.
> You read ~1800 newspapers from 100 years ago?
I concur with your observation that if you stop reading that sentence after the first few words, it makes less sense than if you read the whole sentence.
> Anyway, can you provide a basis that substantiates any claim in the parent?
I already did.
> I don't mean one link to one article
August 13, 1918 NY Times front page - article headline "Red leaders flee, reach Kronstadt, entire Bolshevist government escaping from Moscow". Of course history shows us that the Bolshevist government did not collapse in August 1918.
> there is nothing like HN for unsubstantiated claims about Russia like the parent, which are ceaseless
I have received ceaseless upvotes for my comments on the lies the Times has told about Russia over the past century, and I wish to thank the товарищи who gave them to me - from wherever they are in the world.