MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-11-01 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Meanwhile, in the land of 'Who, me?'
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben.safir-at-my.liu.edu):
> On 11/01/2016 09:01 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS
>
> Reuters is not a reliable source for news.
Although Reuters are one of the world's three top newswire services,
that's not the point.
Whether they are 'reliable' is irrelevant to this matter, as _nothing_
in the indicated article is stated, in any sense, solely on the authority
of the Reuters Group PLC subsidiary of NYC company Thomson Reuters
Corporation. Everything asserted is very easily independently
verifiable, and in fact true.
Your summarily rejecting an easily verifiable news story on the basis
that 'Reuters is not a reliable source for news' would be like me
rejecting an anecdote from Richard Nixon that Eisenhower had a
weimaraner named Heidi at the White House, on grounds that one-time
Eisenhower VP Dick Nixon is an unreliable source and my refusing to
believe that Eisenhower had such a pet. Reacting that way would be
_crazy_, because it's easy to independently verify that, yes, Ike did
indeed have Heidi at the White House, and yes, she was indeed a
weimaraner.
http://presidentialpetmuseum.com/pets/heidi-ik/
> There reporting on Israel has been straight from the BSD campus of UC
> Davis.
BSD = Berkeley Software Distribution.
I believe you have tried and failed to make an (irrelevant, smokescreen)
reference to the PLO/Hamas Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.
By the way, given that you don't trust anything from Thomson Reuters
Corporation (which controls Reuters), you will need to make sure you
equally total-distrust all of the following, as they are _also_ Thomson
Reuters Corporation:
o Westlaw. Therefore, you can no longer trust any attorney
whose services you use directly or indirectly, as they all rely
on Westlaw.
o MarkMonitor. So, basically you now reflexively distrust just about all
Internet brand-monitoring, and thus practically all big businesses
with Internet presences, because many if not most of them are
MarkMonitor customers.
o Entagen. So, basically, there's quite a lot of products for drug
pipeline, deals, patents, and company content (the Cortellis family)
that you'll need to reject out of hand.
I could go on for days with the highly diverse, far-reaching, and yet
mostly obscure-to-you-and-me subsidiaries that Thomson Reuters
Corporation now totally controls, because they're a _huge conglomerate
focussed on making money_ and really doesn't give a damn about political
ideology. They're so huge and so central to business process that
nearly everything they do has to be cleared with antitrust officials at
US Dept. of Justice and the European Commission.
But, sure, go ahead and boycott them and all of their works as 'not
reliable'. Logical consistency would seem to require this of you.
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
