On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:02:29 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:32:13 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in <vkvpr31lra0m1ldtkdpcvrivle358ar938@4ax.com>:

[snip]

>>REUTERS and NEWS.COM are very reputable
>>sources.
>
>They aren't sources. Don't you know the difference?

Sure they are. A source, per Webster's dictionary, is "one that
supplies information" and they are supplying information, even if it
is second-hand.

>>Everything is a rumor until it is officially announced!
>
>Rumors aren't news. They are just rumors.

Rumors most definitely can be newsworthy and therefore news regardless
of your handwaving and denying it's not.

Next thing you are gonna do is say there was no lunar eclipse tonite.