My point is that this is a rather irresponsible journalistic statement. If they want to portray MDVP as a dangerous substance, that's a pretty terrible comparison that fails to get the point across to anybody who knows a thing or two about psychoactive substances.
Which is arguably a single digit percentage of ars readers.
My background in journalism has taught me to favor the former.
I don't think it's a coincidence that most modern journalism isn't worth reading, IMHO.
> Or you do, but it's just decades old from a time when the goal was to inform and not just get page views?
It's not decades old - I just like to think we did a good job of writing informative pieces instead of sensationalist nonsense.
At least, we made a very, very dedicated effort to follow journalistic ethics - I'll let others be the judge on how well we succeeded. :-)