Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • ...out there but I don't have any handy, sorry. I know someone has blog which publishes 100 year old papers every day, you might be able to Google for it and narrow the search to your range. I offer this though: newspapers have rarely, if ever, reflected reality. What we take for crackpottery in things the Enquirer were at times de rigueur. Go back and read some of what Jefferson had to say on the first US newspapers. To know history: letters, art critics, real figures of real goods and flow are much more
    --
    -- 120 chars should be all we're allowed for epitaphs as well.
    • I know that the quality of information from the media is pretty dubious, but the quality of historical reporting is also pretty dubious. Much of history is written from very biased perspectives. For example, many people are unaware that Neville Chamberlain was greeted as a hero in England after giving away part of Czechoslovakia to Germany (similar reactions existed in France). Not everyone had that reaction, of course -- Churchill was allegedly livid -- but today many people second-guess what happened yet have no desire to gain any insight into the perceptions of people at the time. In fact, many times I read about the past and it seems the author has a rather condescending view of people in the past and I'd like to try and get a better idea of what people actually thought about various events.