slate.com é seguro?

I have read too many "articles" on this site that suffer from very poor editorial fact checking, in fact I would have to come to the conclusion that this site is another pseudo-news site that promotes misinformation while containing some writing of merit. As such, I can not consider this site trustworthy.

I am re-rating it. After giving it a second chance it appears that they straightened a number of things out. The security holes appear to have been patched and the messy layout also has been improved. Lastly, apparently for the moment they also cut down the number of ad and tracking services attempting to run in the background- compared to when I was last there.

According to one of the articles, "[Pat] Robertson said you should divorce your wife is she gets Alzheimer's." (And they do not allow you to leave comments.) But Pat Robertson did *not* say that it is OK to divorce your wife is she has Alzheimer's. See full interview here: ***** The particular question he addressed was about a particular woman who did not even recognize her husband any more. Yet he did not say that is what you should do. He said it is a big ethical dilemma, and you should listen to others before making such a decision, only he understood the it is a terribly difficult situation, and he would not condemn someone who made that decision. Perhaps you disagree with Pat Robertson, meaning that you *would* condemn someone who divorced a wife who no longer recognized him. Or you are sure you would not divorce your wife, which is an honorable thing to do, and Pat Robertson did not say otherwise either. But using every possible occasion to condemn God's servants, such as Pat Robertson, quoting their sentences out of the context, is definitely not ethical.