NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/20/blogger-ban-nb.html


Blogger banned from N.B. legislature grounds
Last Updated Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:51:12 EDT
CBC News

A New Brunswick blogger and political activist has been permanently barred from entering any buildings or stepping on any property within the provincial legislature district in Fredericton.

Charles LeBlanc, a prolific blogger who writes about poverty and the province's political and corporate power brokers on his website, was issued the barring notice on June 19.

The notice, posted on LeBlanc's blog, accuses him of demonstrating "unacceptable behaviour within the legislative precincts, which has included harassment and disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff, members of the Security Detail and members of the public."

The notice includes a map of the district, with lines drawn around the streets where LeBlanc is prohibited from walking.

If LeBlanc refuses to stay away, the notice says will be charged with assault under the Criminal Code. The notice is signed by the legislature's Sergeant-at-Arms Dan Bussières.

David Petersen served as clerk of the New Brunswick legislature between 1978 and 1993, and says this is the first he's heard of a person being banned from legislature property.

"We had people practically push the doors off the hinges, and they've never done anything like that," Peterson said.

The notice does not give LeBlanc any right of appeal, or offer any venue to argue whether the ban is appropriate.

Peterson, now a lawyer in private practice, said the threat of an assault charge is strange. "I would love to be the defence lawyer for somebody who is just passively sitting on the front steps of the legislature [and is charged with assault]. It seems a fair stretch."

LeBlanc has gained notoriety in recent weeks for attempting to join New Brunswick's legislature press gallery and getting arrested at a trade conference in Saint John.

The barring notice comes just days after the arrest, which happened as LeBlanc began photographing a group of protesters as they stormed into a meeting of business leaders in Saint John.

LeBlanc spent four hours in jail, and says police deleted all the photos from his digital camera. He is due in court next month to face a charge of obstructing justice.

Even though I am no fan of the blogosphere, I can't imagine someone being charged for 'assault' merely by being in a given place. What think you?

That's weird. A general trumped-up "disturbing the peace" charge I could see (although if he wasn't disturbing anyone but the politicians I'm more or less for it), but assault? That's weird.

Why is it that the Eastern part of my country lives so truthfully to their idiotic stereotypes?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/20/blogger-ban-nb.html


Blogger banned from N.B. legislature grounds
Last Updated Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:51:12 EDT
CBC News

A New Brunswick blogger and political activist has been permanently barred from entering any buildings or stepping on any property within the provincial legislature district in Fredericton.

Charles LeBlanc, a prolific blogger who writes about poverty and the province's political and corporate power brokers on his website, was issued the barring notice on June 19.

The notice, posted on LeBlanc's blog, accuses him of demonstrating "unacceptable behaviour within the legislative precincts, which has included harassment and disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff, members of the Security Detail and members of the public."

The notice includes a map of the district, with lines drawn around the streets where LeBlanc is prohibited from walking.

If LeBlanc refuses to stay away, the notice says will be charged with assault under the Criminal Code. The notice is signed by the legislature's Sergeant-at-Arms Dan Bussières.

David Petersen served as clerk of the New Brunswick legislature between 1978 and 1993, and says this is the first he's heard of a person being banned from legislature property.

"We had people practically push the doors off the hinges, and they've never done anything like that," Peterson said.

The notice does not give LeBlanc any right of appeal, or offer any venue to argue whether the ban is appropriate.

Peterson, now a lawyer in private practice, said the threat of an assault charge is strange. "I would love to be the defence lawyer for somebody who is just passively sitting on the front steps of the legislature [and is charged with assault]. It seems a fair stretch."

LeBlanc has gained notoriety in recent weeks for attempting to join New Brunswick's legislature press gallery and getting arrested at a trade conference in Saint John.

The barring notice comes just days after the arrest, which happened as LeBlanc began photographing a group of protesters as they stormed into a meeting of business leaders in Saint John.

LeBlanc spent four hours in jail, and says police deleted all the photos from his digital camera. He is due in court next month to face a charge of obstructing justice.

Even though I am no fan of the blogosphere, I can't imagine someone being charged for 'assault' merely by being in a given place. What think you?
Wow. That's heavy.:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Ah...keeping the people from seeing what's going on in the legislature; truly democracy in action!

Even though I am no fan of the blogosphere, I can't imagine someone being charged for 'assault' merely by being in a given place. What think you?

What's wrong with the blogosphere? Are they somehow less trustworthy than the folks at CBS who pushed a fake news story about a fake memo, or more credible than the New York Times, who have had a succession of lying journalists and fake stories full of shit?

What's wrong with the blogosphere? Are they somehow less trustworthy than the folks at CBS who pushed a fake news story about a fake memo, or more credible than the New York Times, who have had a succession of lying journalists and fake stories full of shit?
Ahh, now where's a one like you for my other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488576) - the one that's actually of greater import?

Bloggers can kiss my ass. If I want wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes, I'll come to NSG. At least here it's interactive lunacy.

Well, it's nice to see that Canadians can over-react, too. Obviously, this guy just really pissed off a bunch of bureaucrats. :rolleyes:

"Assault" is just silly. Harrassment, yeah, maybe they could make a case for that. Even stalking, if they pushed it. That would be the basis of a restraining order saying he has to stay X distance away. But assault? Please. The legislators need to get over themselves. (EDIT: I'm assuming that this guy doesn't actually threaten people in his blog.)

I don't know much about Canadian law, but would I be right in guessing that, if he actually did get arrested because of this, and it did become a question in court with attorneys to argue it, the legislature's order would be invalidated by the court?

If I were this blogger, I'd be torn about whether to test it, or just get friends of mine to cover the legislature for me.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/20/blogger-ban-nb.html


Blogger banned from N.B. legislature grounds
Last Updated Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:51:12 EDT
CBC News

A New Brunswick blogger and political activist has been permanently barred from entering any buildings or stepping on any property within the provincial legislature district in Fredericton.

Charles LeBlanc, a prolific blogger who writes about poverty and the province's political and corporate power brokers on his website, was issued the barring notice on June 19.

The notice, posted on LeBlanc's blog, accuses him of demonstrating "unacceptable behaviour within the legislative precincts, which has included harassment and disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff, members of the Security Detail and members of the public."

The notice includes a map of the district, with lines drawn around the streets where LeBlanc is prohibited from walking.

If LeBlanc refuses to stay away, the notice says will be charged with assault under the Criminal Code. The notice is signed by the legislature's Sergeant-at-Arms Dan Bussières.

David Petersen served as clerk of the New Brunswick legislature between 1978 and 1993, and says this is the first he's heard of a person being banned from legislature property.

"We had people practically push the doors off the hinges, and they've never done anything like that," Peterson said.

The notice does not give LeBlanc any right of appeal, or offer any venue to argue whether the ban is appropriate.

Peterson, now a lawyer in private practice, said the threat of an assault charge is strange. "I would love to be the defence lawyer for somebody who is just passively sitting on the front steps of the legislature [and is charged with assault]. It seems a fair stretch."

LeBlanc has gained notoriety in recent weeks for attempting to join New Brunswick's legislature press gallery and getting arrested at a trade conference in Saint John.

The barring notice comes just days after the arrest, which happened as LeBlanc began photographing a group of protesters as they stormed into a meeting of business leaders in Saint John.

LeBlanc spent four hours in jail, and says police deleted all the photos from his digital camera. He is due in court next month to face a charge of obstructing justice.

Even though I am no fan of the blogosphere, I can't imagine someone being charged for 'assault' merely by being in a given place. What think you?
Good. Blogs suck. Lock him up.

I don't know much about Canadian law, but would I be right in guessing that, if he actually did get arrested because of this, and it did become a question in court with attorneys to argue it, the legislature's order would be invalidated by the court?

I doubt it, actually. The legislatures have considerable power granted by the crown, and as such it isn't subject to the rule of law.

Sort of like the Prime Minister's power to deny people citizenship.

I doubt it, actually. The legislatures have considerable power granted by the crown, and as such it isn't subject to the rule of law.

Sort of like the Prime Minister's power to deny people citizenship.
Oh. Well, in that case, if I were this blogger, I'd get random friends and acquaintances to cover the legislature for me. :)

Good. Blogs suck. Lock him up.
Yeah blogs do suck, but - why make a martyr out of him?

Yeah blogs do suck, but - why make a martyr out of him?
Your right. He should have an "accident". Like trip and fall into a knife. 8 times.

Ahh, now where's a one like you for my other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488576) - the one that's actually of greater import?

Bloggers can kiss my ass. If I want wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes, I'll come to NSG. At least here it's interactive lunacy.

Oh, you mean wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes like Judith Miller and Jayson Blair? Of the New York Times?

Oh, you mean wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes like Judith Miller and Jayson Blair? Of the New York Times?
The who? We don't read that yank rag here!

The who? We don't read that yank rag here!
Plenty of other wild-eyed, unbalance liars in the mainstream media.

Oh, you mean wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes like Judith Miller and Jayson Blair? Of the New York Times?
Who? And again, who? Of the what?

You might prefer to get your 'information' from people with no shortage of agendae to address, but that doesn't hold true for everyone.

And anyway, I said that if it was wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes I was looking for, that I need look only as far as here - NS General. In light of this, your above-quoted response makes no sense whatsoever.

Who? And again, who? Of the what?

You might prefer to get your 'information' from people with no shortage of agendae to address, but that doesn't hold true for everyone.

And anyway, I said that if it was wild-eyed, one-sided diatribes I was looking for, that I need look only as far as here - NS General. In light of this, your above-quoted response makes no sense whatsoever.

The mainstream media has no shortage of people who are one-sided.

Are you saying that it is all "fair and balanced"?

Or are you equally illogical in saying that all bloggers are one-sided?

Or are you just upset that some people are finally putting the major news networks in their graves, and ending the domination of the news media by a single political viewpoint?

Blogs are different from mainstream media, but they don't try to be mainstream media. Blogs are editorials (most of them with comments sections) with wide reaching audiences. There's nothing wrong with a blog, as long as you take it with a grain of salt.

And yeah, this is total bullshit. I expect that there's more to the story than what we've been told.

DK - now you're certainly taking this personally, it would seem. Touched a nerve, have I?

What makes you think I'm going to go get information from some shut-in kook with broadband and no life to live but to blog? And what is blogging but the ad infinitum regurgitation of biased, *ahem* "reporting" so thoroughly mixed with opinion as to render the bulk of what's being written completely unreadable except for the authors themselves, and/or any of their pitiable friends who have to pretend their eyes aren't glazing over whenever they're jack-booted into playing along?

Blogs aren't just a waste of time - they're a waste of time people will work themselves into a lather over, doubly so when it finally sinks in that no-one actually cares what they think.

Now you're certainly taking this personally, it would seem. Touched a nerve, have I?

What makes you think I'm going to go get information from some shut-in kook with broadband and no life to live but to blog? And what is blogging but the ad infinitum regurgitation of biased, *ahem* "reporting" so thoroughly mixed with opinion as to render the bulk of what's being written completely unreadable except for the authors themselves, and/or any of their pitiable friends who have to pretend their eyes aren't glazing over whenever they're jack-booted into playing along?

Blogs aren't just a waste of time - they're a waste of time people will work themselves into a lather over, doubly so when it finally sinks in that no-one actually cares what they think.

You're making the mistake of thinking that all bloggers are shut-ins.

Some, for example, are on the scene. You're going to say that they don't count while a reporter on the scene does?

Having seen the idiocy of reporters first-hand, especially when it comes to understanding what's going on in combat, I'd rather take some (not all) bloggers than some of the idiot journalists with credentials.

Blogs aren't just a waste of time - they're a waste of time people will work themselves into a lather over, doubly so when it finally sinks in that no-one actually cares what they think.

Does anyone else see the irony of a bunch of forumers/NSers condemning blogs for wasting time because nobody cares what the bloggers think? Hmm...

Maybe he could be charged with something else but assault?????Thats weird.

Does anyone else see the irony of a bunch of forumers/NSers condemning blogs for wasting time because nobody cares what the bloggers think? Hmm...
I think the irony is lost on Dobbs and Sinuhue.

You're making the mistake of thinking that all bloggers are shut-ins.

Some, for example, are on the scene. You're going to say that they don't count while a reporter on the scene does?

Having seen the idiocy of reporters first-hand, especially when it comes to understanding what's going on in combat, I'd rather take some (not all) bloggers than some of the idiot journalists with credentials.
Having relatives in Journalism, I'd sooner take the comparitive objectivity of a trained professional over the "let's-retrofit-events-to-suit-my-implicit-agenda" amateur-night crowd any day. Or night.

Does anyone else see the irony of a bunch of forumers/NSers condemning blogs for wasting time because nobody cares what the bloggers think? Hmm...
And do you see the irony in that the article quoted in the OP comes from a bona fide news agency, and not a space-for-rant?

Does anyone else see the irony of a bunch of forumers/NSers condemning blogs for wasting time because nobody cares what the bloggers think? Hmm...
And never mind that they're missing the entire point. It doesn't matter if this blogger, or any other blogger, is a "legitimate journalist" or not. This is a case of a private citizen being summarily barred from public property on a false charge, with no right of appeal. Based on the (admittedly rather sketchy) information in the article, this blogger hasn't assaulted, or attempted to assault, anyone. All he's done is try to get access to his provincial legislature so that he can publicly comment on what happens in the provincial government. That ought to be anyone's right. So by saying that they don't care about the rights of bloggers, they are, by extension, saying that they don't care about their own. Fine, maybe you don't - but you may care about them more when someday it's your rights that are being trampled.

Having relatives in Journalism, I'd sooner take the comparitive objectivity of a trained professional over the "let's-retrofit-events-to-suit-my-implicit-agenda" amateur-night crowd any day. Or night.
Like the crowd of 50 or so "trained professionals" who were first-hand witnesses to the 1st Infantry Division doing its feint at the start of the 1991 Gulf War, and couldn't for the life of them figure out what was going on.

Morons. And they have their own agenda. You're saying that Dan Rather didn't have an agenda?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Like the crowd of 50 or so "trained professionals" who were first-hand witnesses to the 1st Infantry Division doing its feint at the start of the 1991 Gulf War, and couldn't for the life of them figure out what was going on.

Morons. And they have their own agenda. You're saying that Dan Rather didn't have an agenda?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Disavow yourself of your provincial notions, they are and will be your downfall. The rest of the world doesn't dance when you call the tune, DK - if you don't personally like news coverage in your own nation, take it up with NBC or whoever you wish. Don't go bitching and wheezing that all media everywhere is as unsatisfying as you find US Journalism to be.

Disavow yourself of your provincial notions, they are and will be your downfall. The rest of the world doesn't dance when you call the tune, DK - if you don't personally like news coverage in your own nation, take it up with NBC or whoever you wish. Don't go bitching and wheezing that all media everywhere is as unsatisfying as you find US Journalism to be.
I haven't found that foreign news sources are any less likely to have an agenda. Or are you deluding yourself into thinking that just because you can watch government-sponsored news, that it's somehow "neutral"?

I haven't found that foreign news sources are any less likely to have an agenda. Or are you deluding yourself into thinking that just because you can watch government-sponsored news, that it's somehow "neutral"?
Why should I bother, when you've already deluded yourself into thinking that all news coverage is somehow skewed against whatever agenda you're currently backing - if only because it's precisely that - news coverage, and not some opinion piece designed with the advancement of your stated/unstated position in mind?

Why should I bother, when you've already deluded yourself into thinking that all news coverage is somehow skewed against whatever agenda you're currently backing - if only because it's precisely that - news coverage, and not some opinion piece designed with the advancement of your stated/unstated position in mind?
Haven't said that at all - you're imagining things.

I am saying that every reporter, especially if they advertise themselves to be non-biased, have a bias of one sort or another. Belonging to a news organization or having "training" has no ability to stop them from acting on their bias.

Thus your argument that somehow "all" bloggers are people with an axe to grind is irrelevant. Completely.

Maybe if you read some bloggers who were on the scene and knew far more than the reporters on the scene, you would think differently. But, since you think that "ALL" bloggers are a waste of time, I guess you'll have to rely on idiots who can't tell what's happenning even when someone explains it to them and shows it happenning in front of their faces.

That's bullshit...

We might ask ourselves - "if it weren't for the blogosphere, would Dan Rather still be working at CBS?" or "if it weren't for the blogosphere, would CBS have retracted a blatantly false story?"

Dan Rather would still be there, and CBS would never have retracted the false story, had it not been for the blogosphere.

He should sneak over there and graffitti '[name] was ere all alone committing assault' onto one of the walls. I know I'd laugh.

He should sneak over there and graffitti '[name] was ere all alone committing assault' onto one of the walls. I know I'd laugh.

I wonder why they think he's such a threat. Taking pictures and publicizing the government's actions is something every citizen is entitled to do, regardless of whether or not they are a "trained journalist".

I suppose that for the world where people think that "trained journalists" are the only people with those rights also believe that basketball should only be played by professional basketball players, and the piano should only be played by university-trained concert pianists.

We might ask ourselves - "if it weren't for the blogosphere, would Dan Rather still be working at CBS?" or "if it weren't for the blogosphere, would CBS have retracted a blatantly false story?"

Dan Rather would still be there, and CBS would never have retracted the false story, had it not been for the blogosphere.
Or, we might ask ourselves, "if it weren't for bloggers in the US, might the distinctions between information, editorialising, and so-called 'entertainment' not be so blurred as to render any coverage - of any sort - highly suspect, by a jaded public conditioned by pundits with well-defined agendae to promulgate"?

Goes both ways, DK. You don't own anything like a moral high-ground, so cut the crap.

Or, we might ask ourselves, "if it weren't for bloggers in the US, might the distinctions between information, editorialising, and so-called 'entertainment' not be so blurred as to render any coverage - of any sort - highly suspect, by a jaded public conditioned by pundits with well-defined agendae to promulgate"?

Goes both ways, DK. You don't own anything like a moral high-ground, so cut the crap.
I'm not the one claiming the high ground. You're claiming that all journalists on on the high ground, and they most definitely are NOT.

Or, we might ask ourselves, "if it weren't for bloggers in the US, might the distinctions between information, editorialising, and so-called 'entertainment' not be so blurred as to render any coverage - of any sort - highly suspect, by a jaded public conditioned by pundits with well-defined agendae to promulgate"?

Goes both ways, DK. You don't own anything like a moral high-ground, so cut the crap.

It should be suspect. So much of what has been put out has turned out to be blatantly false, that it makes perfect sense for people not to trust the "professional media" anymore.

You can ask yourself the question all you want. Ever hear of the phrase "yellow journalism"? It's been around alot longer than the internet.

I'm not the one claiming the high ground. You're claiming that all journalists on on the high ground, and they most definitely are NOT.
No, if I'm claiming anything, it's that bloggers can't - by their very nature - claim high ground. There are ethical journalists, and there are unethical journalists. Unethical journalists tend to be shown the door. There's no-one to show an unethical blogger the door. Just a perpetual chorus of like-minded readers.

I'll takes my chances with those who might face a comeuppance for being big fat liars over shut-in kooks with no 'off' switch any day, DK.

It should be suspect. So much of what has been put out has turned out to be blatantly false, that it makes perfect sense for people not to trust the "professional media" anymore.
Elucidate. With examples. Examples that reach out beyond your little corner of the world.

Elucidate. With examples. Examples that reach out beyond your little corner of the world.

Oh, a personal attack, how quaint.

Do you deny the whole Dan Rather situation?
Do you remember the whole "US troops and Thanksgiving" media hype that turned out to not even be US troops?

Howabout this:

http://mediamatters.org

Oh, but I guess only the US media ever presents distortions, right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3294501.stm
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14187

Oh, a personal attack, how quaint.

Do you deny the whole Dan Rather situation?
Do you remember the whole "US troops and Thanksgiving" media hype that turned out to not even be US troops?

Howabout this:

http://mediamatters.org

Oh, but I guess only the US media ever presents distortions, right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3294501.stm
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14187

You call that news? The BBC was cautious in its' reporting of that so-called 'news story' - quoted, from the opening paragraph of the article you've linked to:

A roast turkey presented to US troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving by President George W Bush was reportedly only used for decorative purposes.

Quite different than the story your linked-to blog source tells.

I know who I'll trust to tell facts, and not fatuous BS designed to shore up a kooks' agenda, thanks all the same.






*edit: and you wouldn't know a personal attack from a simple request if the robot monkeys did a little dance, singing, 'This is not a personal attack'.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/robot_monkeys.jpg

You call that news? The BBC was cautious in its' reporting of that so-called 'news story' - quoted, from the opening paragraph of the article you've linked to:



Quite different than the story your linked-to blog source tells.

I know who I'll trust to tell facts, and not fatuous BS designed to shore up a kooks' agenda, thanks all the same.

And I just present some sources after a quick search and you completely dismiss it. Color me surprised.

Who unraveled "Rathergate"? The Jessica Lynch lies? The "kooks". Who started those lies, who repeated them? Oh, right, the "professional media".

But since you have nothing better than sweeping stereotypical generalizations, it's the best you can do.

Edit: So now you deny that you weren't trying to be snide w/ the whole "little corner of the world" comment?

Paste some more silly pictures of your relatives BTW. They're funny.

Or, we might ask ourselves, "if it weren't for bloggers in the US, might the distinctions between information, editorialising, and so-called 'entertainment' not be so blurred as to render any coverage - of any sort - highly suspect, by a jaded public conditioned by pundits with well-defined agendae to promulgate"?

You somehow think that wasn't true 5 years ago?

The media always have an ulterior motive. You just have to know what that is.

And I just present some sources after a quick search and you completely dismiss it. Color me surprised.
Find me an actual story wherein the journalists concerned were caught lying and weren't punished for their transgressions and maybe we'll have something more substantial to kick around. That red herring about a rubber turkey isn't it.

Better yet, find me a story where editorialising bloggers have been upbraided by an authority for playing fast and loose with the facts in order to advance a political agenda.

Didn't think so.

Next-!

Edit: So now you deny that you weren't trying to be snide w/ the whole "little corner of the world" comment?

Paste some more silly pictures of your relatives BTW. They're funny.

If I wanted to engage you in a personal attack, I wouldn't stoop so low as to off-handed comments about your well-known parochial outlook. I'd focus on something far more substantial than that.

As it is, a quip about something ludicrous, like robot monkeys, will more than meet my needs.

Find me an actual story wherein the journalists concerned were caught lying and weren't punished for their transgressions and maybe we'll have something more substantial to kick around. That red herring about a rubber turkey isn't it.

Better yet, find me a story where editorialising bloggers have been upbraided by an authority for playing fast and loose with the facts in order to advance a political agenda.

Didn't think so.

Next-!

Nice, now you make a demand and then refute it in the same post. Keep trying.

WHy were the "professionals" punished? Because they were caught. WHo caught them? Bloggers, not other professionals. Was DR fired?

Did I say the bloggers shouldn't be suspect either? Nope. Claim all the "red herrings" you want when presented w/ facts. The "professional media" reported it as fact, did they not?

Better yet, why don't we restrict the bloggers so they can't say anything. Kind of like certain groups are pushing for now, like the "professionals" who keep getting caught.

Why don't you have another temper tantrum and go away for awhile again.

If I wanted to engage you in a personal attack, I wouldn't stoop so low as to off-handed comments about your well-known parochial outlook. I'd focus on something far more substantial than that.

As it is, a quip about something ludicrous, like robot monkeys, will more than meet my needs.

"Well known parochial outlook"? I'ld love for you to prove that one.

Once again, ludicrous statements are the best you've got.

Nice, now you make a demand and then refute it in the same post. Keep trying.

WHy were the "professionals" punished? Because they were caught. WHo caught them? Bloggers, not other professionals. Was DR fired?

Did I say the bloggers shouldn't be suspect either? Nope. Claim all the "red herrings" you want when presented w/ facts. The "professional media" reported it as fact, did they not?

Better yet, why don't we restrict the bloggers so they can't say anything. Kind of like certain groups are pushing for now, like the "professionals" who keep getting caught.

Why don't you have another temper tantrum and go away for awhile again.

The "professional media", in the shoddy example you provided, did not report it as fact - and I went well out of my way to highlight the pertinent (and prominent) part of the opening paragraph where the story was qualified.

Shouting me down won't make your example any less fatuous. You're a bully and a cad - and it matters not one whit to me if you wish to continue deluding yourself into thinking that all media is a scheme to undermine your rampant paranoia. Go ahead and mistrust anything that doesn't emanate from your world of biased-editorial-as-news.

Like I've said repeatedly, I'll choose to trust people who have consequences to face should they be proven wrong in their reporting of facts over people who are lionized by adoring fawns for same.

Once again, ludicrous statements are the best you've got.
Sorry to disappoint. If you'll take the time to read and digest, rather than react and attack, you'll see my point - and I challenge you to refute it.

Just when I am ready to declare my home-nation of America as the dumbest in the world, I always get slapped in the face with an article similar to the original post which always mekes me rethink.

Sorry to disappoint. If you'll take the time to read and digest, rather than react and attack, you'll see my point - and I challenge you to refute it.

No, the only thing you "refuted" was ONE SENTANCE FROM ONE SINGLE ARTICLE completely ignoring every other link available.

Howabout this"However, now it seems likely that the soldiers ate pre-prepared turkey instead, not the glistening golden brown creature handled by the US president."

It's hard to "digest" bile.

The "professional media", in the shoddy example you provided, did not report it as fact - and I went well out of my way to highlight the pertinent (and prominent) part of the opening paragraph where the story was qualified.

Once again completely ignoring everything else including the rest of the article.

Shouting me down won't make your example any less fatuous. You're a bully and a cad - and it matters not one whit to me if you wish to continue deluding yourself into thinking that all media is a scheme to undermine your rampant paranoia. Go ahead and mistrust anything that doesn't emanate from your world of biased-editorial-as-news.

Now I'm a "bully and cad" while making lots of red herrings and ad hominems of your own. You can keep "deluding" yourself that the "professionals" are doing such a wonderful job. I guess that means you don't have any actual evidence for your continuous personal attacks against me.

Like I've said repeatedly, I'll choose to trust people who have consequences to face should they be proven wrong in their reporting of facts over people who are lionized by adoring fawns for same.

You trust who you want. When more and more fabrications keep coming out from the "professionals", your words will be ash.

No, the only thing you "refuted" was ONE SENTANCE FROM ONE SINGLE ARTICLE completely ignoring every other link available.

Howabout this"However, now it seems likely that the soldiers ate pre-prepared turkey instead, not the glistening golden brown creature handled by the US president."

It's hard to "digest" bile.
Well, it's glaringly obvious to anyone reading this exchange that you're not so much responding to anything I write as taking the opportunity to fill the lulls between my posts with vitriolic spite.

Now how did I use the word 'refute', Kecibukia? did I use it in such a way as it jibes with your "response" quoted above?

No, it doesn't, now does it?

I don't see the need to engage you further. You have agenda to pursue and you'll move Heaven and Earth, seemingly, to ensure that nothing interferes with your perceptions, be they right or wrong.

The last thing I'll say in your presence is a mere reiteration - that I'll always prefer to choose news sources who are constrained to tell truths, or risk their livelihoods in light of transgressing their bond rather than choose to rely on non-professionals who have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) if and when they misrepresent facts in order to advance their own agendae.

and I'll repeat that last bit for you, in bold:

I'll always prefer to choose news sources who are constrained to tell truths, or risk their livelihoods in light of transgressing their bond rather than choose to rely on non-professionals who have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) if and when they misrepresent facts in order to advance their own agendae.

Got it? No? Well, I'm not sorry. Not one damned bit. And before you yet again launch yourself at my jugular, know this:

I ain't nibbling. It's pointless to try interacting with someone who is as stone to water. Find yourself another dance partner, Kecibukia. You've given me a headache already.

I just glanced at the home page and saw you responding to my 5:16 PM post since 5:18 PM, Kec.

I told you I'm not nibbling. Just drop it already. Go find someone else to hassle.

Well, it's glaringly obvious to anyone reading this exchange that you're not so much responding to anything I write as taking the opportunity to fill the lulls between my posts with vitriolic spite.

Now how did I use the word 'refute', Kecibukia? did I use it in such a way as it jibes with your "response" quoted above?

No, it doesn't, now does it?

I don't see the need to engage you further. You have agenda to pursue and you'll move Heaven and Earth, seemingly, to ensure that nothing interferes with your perceptions, be they right or wrong.

The last thing I'll say in your presence is a mere reiteration - that I'll always prefer to choose news sources who are constrained to tell truths, or risk their livelihoods in light of transgressing their bond rather than choose to rely on non-professionals who have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) if and when they misrepresent facts in order to advance their own agendae.

and I'll repeat that last bit for you, in bold:

I'll always prefer to choose news sources who are constrained to tell truths, or risk their livelihoods in light of transgressing their bond rather than choose to rely on non-professionals who have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) if and when they misrepresent facts in order to advance their own agendae.

Got it? No? Well, I'm not sorry. Not one damned bit. And before you yet again launch yourself at my jugular, know this:

I ain't nibbling. It's pointless to try interacting with someone who is as stone to water. Find yourself another dance partner, Kecibukia. You've given me a headache already.


Translation: I really can't respond w/ anything but unfounded personal attacks and sweeping generalizations even when presented w/ evidence to the contrary so I'm going to go away and pout.

What "agenda" am I pursuing? Distrusting the authority that the "professionals" have granted themselves? Do you deny that numerous falsifications by the "professionals" have been uncovered by those you completely denounce as "kooks"? Did I ever say I put my absolute trust in bloggers? Did I say you should? Did I ever say "all media is a scheme to undermine my rampant paranoia" or anything similar? Do you just make things up as you go along?

I'll always prefer to choose news sources who are constrained to tell truths, or risk their livelihoods in light of transgressing their bond rather than choose to rely on non-professionals who have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) if and when they misrepresent facts in order to advance their own agendae.

Sounds reasonable to me. I tend to trust professionals who are held to certain standards over amateurs who are not...much as I would trust a real police force over a citizen militia, or a licensed restaurant over a back-street doggy-BBQ diner.

Sounds reasonable to me. I tend to trust professionals who are held to certain standards over amateurs who are not...much as I would trust a real police force over a citizen militia, or a licensed restaurant over a back-street doggy-BBQ diner.

But when the professionals are failing at their own standards, isn't it the job of the amateurs to call them on it?