On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:33:45 -0800, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in <1k6qr3pdv1jsds3aepqmiooqos2g7png2q@4ax.com>:

>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.

Nope. There are reporting speculation. The sources are the analysts.

>>>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.

Rumors aren't news no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

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

Nope. That was real news, albeit not terribly surprising.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>