On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:02:45 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>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.

So they *weren't* sources before ("They aren't sources"), now they are
("The sources are the analysts").

Your words speak for themselves.

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

I'm sure none of these are news either:

http://tinyurl.com/352l3p
http://tinyurl.com/3yrvja

And I'm sure when CNN/FoxNews was reporting speculation about the US
invading Iraq that wasn't news or newsworthy either.

Go back to the Twilight Zone, John.