Kevin Gowen wrote:
> Declan Murphy wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>> Sorry, 'fraid not. Reuters has made it quite clear that its style 
>>> guide is based on intimidation from goons.
>>
>> Reuters has made it quite clear that "Goons" is not a word Reuters 
>> would use. 
> 
> Well, good thing I never suggested otherwise. Maybe you should object to
> some other things that I have never said.

So far from you we have had "Islamofascists", goons, thugs - and your 
major beef is that Reuters prefers not to use emotive and unnecessary 
words that you would prefer. No one would ever get reliable news from 
you, nor from anyone else with a similarly biased mindset.

>> As the man said, "Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive 
>> words when labeling someone".
<snip>
>> The 1st and 3rd sentences would not only precede news, it would also 
>> ensure that the reporters continued to be in a position where they 
>> could continue to gather news from the 2 subjects above.
> 
> Er, ok. You seem to think that the use of "terrorist" is emotive and/or
> editorializing. Why?

Yes I think the use of the word terrorist is inappropriate for 
newswires. The term is used only to demonise an enemy. Perhaps if you 
had made it into the military you would have become familiar with the 
reasons why it is considered necessary to do so.

>>> There is such a thing as Palestinian?
>>
>> Yes. In fact I gave a lift to the station to one about a month ago.
> 
> Maybe next week you can give an Atlantean a lift?

If I'm giving a lift to someone who says they are a Palestinian, then 
they are a Palestinian. Similarly, when my brother in law says he is a 
Kashmiri, it is because he is. If someone said he was Altantean, I would 
say "Hi Kevin". Maybe you should just grow up. It isn't too late you know.

>>>> As the grandson of a "terrorist", I afraid I had a hard time keeping 
>>>> a straight face reading that editorial. 
>>>
>>> Yes, yes, we've all heard about your granny.
>>
>> No, you haven't.
> 
> No, we have. For some reason, you delight in regaling us with it.
> "My granny is/was (I don't know if she is cold in the ground) a
> terrorist! Isn't that weird?"

You haven't heard anything about her at all. Not a single detail, and 
you won't. Yes she has passed away, lived to a ripe old age.

>>> Then maybe "you" could "define" "terrorist", then. And please don't 
>>> drag out the old saw of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom 
>>> fighter." These thugs fight for no one's freedom.
>>
>> Sure. "A terrorist is what someone is called by those who find it 
>> expedient to do so when that someone uses or threatens use of force or 
>> violence for ideological, nationalistic or any other political reason".
> 
> Hmm. Seems overbroad to me, as every state and its military in the
> history of the planet has used or threatened the use of force or
> violence for ideological, nationalistic or any other political reason.
>
> You should try again.

No need. I don't see any difference whatsoever between the actions of 
most states/tribes/clans at any stage of history. War is war, and most 
wars (like this one) do not meet the criteria of a just war (in the 
Aquinas sense).

I see no difference in precision between a truck bomb and dropping 
unguided ordnance from 30000 feet.
I see no difference in precision between a laser guided bomb dropped 
through an air vent into a bunker containing combatants and walking up 
behind a combatant in a cafe http://tinyurl.com/5fmxz
I see no difference in intent between the US trying to assassinate 
political figures, and the bombing of say, the Brighton Hotel.
I see no difference in intent between Sand Creek, Dresden, Croke Park or 
911.

All of the above are to me equally repugnant. No, I think I'll settle 
for the definition I provided.

>>> They are doing nothing of the kind. They are altering their language 
>>> in response to intimidation.
>>
>> On the contrary, they are providing news, as opposed to propaganda.
> 
> Wow, so "news" is what happens when we alter our language to make sure
> we don't anger those who threaten force? Perhaps "Pravda" was also a
> news provider.

Are you claiming that Pravda altered its language to make sure it didn't 
anger those who threaten force? Or that Pravda was a newswire service 
collecting information, using extensive and vulnerable local contacts, 
without a political bias. There is no comparison. CNN and FOX are closer 
to Pravda than Reuters will (hopefully) ever be.

> Reporters' families? I don't give a shit. Fuck them.

What a surprise.

>>> By admission, Reuters does not use "terrorist" in order to protect 
>>> its reporters. If the "news" service is employing a given style and 
>>> reporting based on threats from others, what makes you think that the 
>>> news is being reported?
>>
>> The news is being reported. 
> 
> They have made it quite clear that they are not reporting the news.
> "We don't use words that make the terrorists upset."

Those quotation marks are yours. Reuters is reporting the news, it is 
just not pandering to the prejudices of end users of their product.

>> A subject is interviewed, the story wired. It is not part of the news 
>> service to label the interviewees something they clearly believe they 
>> are not. 
> 
> Who is "they"? The "news" service or the interviewee?

Theoretically both I s'pose, though I was referring to the interviewee.

>>>> It is their customers, who use/misuse the news service product to 
>>>> fill in the gaps between the Nike and Coke commercials and decide to 
>>>> sex up the text into something often quite different to what was 
>>>> collected by the reporter in the field who are responding to 
>>>> intimidation - primarily from their advertizers and shareholders.
>>>
>>> Why are you knocking down a straw man?
>>
>> Is that what a you believe a straw man is? I've often wondered.
> 
> What do you call it when one responds to an argument that no one has made?

A Kevin.

-- 
"A large number of aliens have been applying themselves to studying in 
various areas inclusive of studying Japanese" - Masuda Nobuya, Director 
General, Immigration Bureau.