Conquer Club

I try and pick one up almost daily, at least so I can do the crossword, but lately I've been reading more online.

How often do you read a print edition of a paper? Local or national? And which ones do you prefer?

Once a week the only way i can make sure i wasn't arrested. (My sister has a habit of using my name)

Funny, I have a habit of using my sister's habit for nun cosplay.

Nope, never did never will.

I read the paper daily, just to see if Apey's family has purchased property in my neighborhood.

I'd be forced to sell my house, before my property values plummet.

British newspapers are dubious at best and absolute garbage at worst. The only time I pick up a newspaper is to read the sports section of the free paper they give out on the London subway in the evenings.

I get all my news from the BBC and Sohu news apps.

Financial Times is definitely in the top 5 or 10.

FT is probably okay, but boring as hell if you don't trade commodities.

I presume we dont count the Metro, but what about the Evening Standard? Read that regularly.

Other than that, the times when I go round my parents house.

Why would you count the Evening Standard but not the Metro?

No, because I'm not an old fart. Read your news online like a normal person FFS.

Bernie Sanders wrote:I read the paper daily, just to see if Apey's family has purchased property in my neighborhood.

I'd be forced to sell my house, before my property values plummet.

Holy shit you know my sister? Did you shoot that porn with her
Get checked bernie

Pix please ;o)

My bride gets them for the coupons (she saves like 50-80% every time she goes grocery shopping....unfortunately, I do most of it, so overall savings nowhere near that). I then take the paper solely for the crossword ;o)

So...no, I guess. I get my news from Spongebob.

New York Times is the best.

mrswdk wrote:FT is probably okay, but boring as hell if you don't trade commodities.

They cover stocks too!

mrswdk wrote:Why would you count the Evening Standard but not the Metro?

And this is why you should never speak on behalf of the British, you dont understand context.

Up until a couple of years ago the Evening Standard was a bona fide newspaper costing money to purchase. They then took the desicion to give it away for free in London and replace lost selling revenue with advertising revenue. They actually know what journalism is.

Whereas the Metro is part funded by TfL and is a piece of rubbish, except notably the page dedicated to latest tube news and details of upcoming engineering works.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Why would you count the Evening Standard but not the Metro?

And this is why you should never speak on behalf of the British, you dont understand context.

Up until a couple of years ago the Evening Standard was a bona fide newspaper costing money to purchase. They then took the desicion to give it away for free in London and replace lost selling revenue with advertising revenue. They actually know what journalism is.

Whereas the Metro is part funded by TfL and is a piece of rubbish, except notably the page dedicated to latest tube news and details of upcoming engineering works.

Ah, now I get it. The Evening standard is a newspaper because [vague notion of 'proper journalism']. Very illuminating.

Anyways, who told you the Metro (a national paper) is part-funded by TfL? Metro pay TfL for the right to distribute their paper on London public transport.

mrswdk wrote:FT is probably okay, but boring as hell if you don't trade commodities.

I liked it ... when I was getting it for free.

Of course it was the US edition ... perhaps that edition was more exciting.

We get The Week every, well, week.

Get the local paper 6 days a week.

For the Sunday newspaper (all the US Sunday papers) alone 500,000 trees have to be cut down each week. That's not even counting the daily issues. As of 2009, 95 million trees a year, 126 billion gallons of waste water and 73 billion pounds of greenhouse gases is the price paid so you wankers can read your newspapers. And that's just for the United States.

Newspapers are horrible for the environment and it's not like there isn't an alternative. And that's not even taking into account the displaced animals who have their little ecosystem disrupted and destroyed just to bring you your Sunday newspaper or your sports section.

<shrugs> Newspapers are antiquated technology, inefficient, wasteful and destructive. Even recycled newspaper produces a large amount of waste product from the deinking and cleaning of the used fibers. This is more water, more chemicals that have to be used and disposed of somehow.

A lot of stuff is made out of wood, and needfully so. Paper is also important and there is no getting around that, but the newspapers aren't. There are better and more useful things to use those trees for. You Rtards grow up and join the 21st century and stop reading newsprint. Find some other way to destroy forests and pollute. Virtually everything you read in newsprint can already be found online at least a day before it ever appears in the newspaper.

Go hug a tree before it's cut down for the cartoon section. Shall we get rid of all books as well?

No one buys books any more.

warmonger1981 wrote:Go hug a tree before it's cut down for the cartoon section. Shall we get rid of all books as well?

Do you shit in an outhouse as well? How's your model T holding up, still purring like a kitten? Get with the times numbnut.

mrswdk wrote:No one buys books any more.

Actually the rise in E-book sales has stagnated somewhere around 30% if I remember correctly simply because too many people don't want to give up the charm of a paper prints, myself included.