Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
back of the thing.
On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
> back of the thing.
Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent newspaper and their policies.
> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
> > Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
> > guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
> > propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
> > picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
> > at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
> > guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
> > their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
> > back of the thing.
> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
> newspaper and their policies.
> ...but you found it.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.
Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.
What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
what news organizations do.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:11:00 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
>guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
>propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
>picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
>at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
>guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
>their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
>back of the thing.
I seem to recall that Stalin was pro gun, therefore the Stalinists
must be those who are pro guns. Nice concept, the american loony
right are Stalinists.
> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
>> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
>> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
>> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
>> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
>> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
>> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
>> back of the thing.
> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
> newspaper and their policies.
> ...but you found it.
What does surprise me is that I don't think he ever quoted the Onion as a serious web site.
> > On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
> >> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
> >> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
> >> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
> >> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
> >> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
> >> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
> >> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
> >> back of the thing.
> > Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
> > newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
> > SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
> > newspaper and their policies.
> > ...but you found it.
> What does surprise me is that I don't think he ever quoted the Onion as
> a serious web site.
> --
> Peter
Rich has demonstated a sufficiently high level of intelligence to
figure out somethings just aren't going to work. He doesn't want to
look like an obvious idiot.
> On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>> > Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
>> > guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
>> > propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
>> > picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
>> > at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
>> > guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots.
> But
>> > their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
>> > back of the thing.
>> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
>> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
>> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
>> newspaper and their policies.
>> ...but you found it.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
> It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
> this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.
> Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
> as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
> 'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
> Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
> specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.
> What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
> what news organizations do.
> Vance
That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argument came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating images to remove guns. If you people are ok with that manipulation, I fear for the integrity of the press.
> Vance <vance.l...@gmail.com> wrote in news:124a19dc-5d1a-46c3-b822-
> d58b073af...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>> On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>>>> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
>>>> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
>>>> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
>>>> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a
> gun
>>>> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images
> of
>>>> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots.
>> But
>>>> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
>>>> back of the thing.
>>> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
>>> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
>>> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
>>> newspaper and their policies.
>>> ...but you found it.
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Savageduck
>> It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
>> this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.
>> Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
>> as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
>> 'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
>> Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
>> specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.
>> What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
>> what news organizations do.
>> Vance
> That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argument
> came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating
> images to remove guns. If you people are ok with that manipulation, I
> fear for the integrity of the press.
I think the point being made was, there is nobody here who considers that screed a serious instrument of journalism, left or right. With regard to the question of integrity, it doesn't seem as if integrity was ever a priority for them. I doubt if many Canadians consider it a serious source of factual information or news
...but it is a Canadian rag, so who knows how it is viewed by that population. This is the first I had ever heard of it, and I have no reason to return to those dubious pages.
RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
>guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
>propagandizing is normal.
Wow. You're just a crazy right-wing fascist, aren't you?
-- Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfisc...@sonic.net | Goethe
> On 2012-02-10 22:22:05 -0800, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> said:
> > Vance <vance.l...@gmail.com> wrote in news:124a19dc-5d1a-46c3-b822-
> > d58b073af...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> >> On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
> >>>> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
> >>>> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
> >>>> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
> >>>> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a
> > gun
> >>>> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images
> > of
> >>>> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots.
> >> But
> >>>> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
> >>>> back of the thing.
> >>> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
> >>> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
> >>> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
> >>> newspaper and their policies.
> >>> ...but you found it.
> >>> --
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Savageduck
> >> It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
> >> this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.
> >> Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
> >> as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
> >> 'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
> >> Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
> >> specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.
> >> What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
> >> what news organizations do.
> >> Vance
> > That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argument
> > came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating
> > images to remove guns. If you people are ok with that manipulation, I
> > fear for the integrity of the press.
> I think the point being made was, there is nobody here who considers
> that screed a serious instrument of journalism, left or right. With
> regard to the question of integrity, it doesn't seem as if integrity
> was ever a priority for them. I doubt if many Canadians consider it a
> serious source of factual information or news
> ...but it is a Canadian rag, so who knows how it is viewed by that
> population. This is the first I had ever heard of it, and I have no
> reason to return to those dubious pages.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
Duck, that might be a little harsh. They probably are a very credible
source of factual information for their audience. If they followed
something like our product ingredients labelling, or just follow the
common practice of advertising your products strongest point first,
then news is the least important ingredient as shown on their
website. If Toronto Now was a pharmaceutical, news might even be
listed as an inert ingredient.
Also, as far as I could tell, they aren't even pretending to be a news
organization and that could deserve some Brownie Points, don't you
think?
I am waiting to see if I get a reply to my question on their editorial
policy regarding image manipulation and specifically the gun thing.
If it is their policy to edit guns out of images, I'm curious what the
context is. It's rare, but when I just want to waste time for no real
purpose, starting from what's real and seeing where Rich goes with it
works.
> On Feb 10, 11:23 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-10 22:22:05 -0800, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> said:
>>> Vance <vance.l...@gmail.com> wrote in news:124a19dc-5d1a-46c3-b822-
>>> d58b073af...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>>>> On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrot
> e:
>>>>> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>>> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
>>>>>> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalini
> st
>>>>>> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted
> a
>>>>>> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a
>>> gun
>>>>>> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images
>>> of
>>>>>> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots.
>>>> But
>>>>>> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
>>>>>> back of the thing.
>>>>> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
>>>>> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
>>>>> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
>>>>> newspaper and their policies.
>>>>> ...but you found it.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Savageduck
>>>> It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
>>>> this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.
>>>> Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
>>>> as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
>>>> 'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
>>>> Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
>>>> specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.
>>>> What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
>>>> what news organizations do.
>>>> Vance
>>> That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argume
> nt
>>> came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating
>>> images to remove guns. If you people are ok with that manipulation,
> I
>>> fear for the integrity of the press.
>> I think the point being made was, there is nobody here who considers
>> that screed a serious instrument of journalism, left or right. With
>> regard to the question of integrity, it doesn't seem as if integrity
>> was ever a priority for them. I doubt if many Canadians consider it a
>> serious source of factual information or news
>> ...but it is a Canadian rag, so who knows how it is viewed by that
>> population. This is the first I had ever heard of it, and I have no
>> reason to return to those dubious pages.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
> Duck, that might be a little harsh. They probably are a very credible
> source of factual information for their audience. If they followed
> something like our product ingredients labelling, or just follow the
> common practice of advertising your products strongest point first,
> then news is the least important ingredient as shown on their
> website. If Toronto Now was a pharmaceutical, news might even be
> listed as an inert ingredient.
> Also, as far as I could tell, they aren't even pretending to be a news
> organization and that could deserve some Brownie Points, don't you
> think?
I suspect that you are correct, they never had any intention to even pretend to be a news organization. However Rich seems to be quite familiar with their editorial practices and photo editing policies, past and present.
> I am waiting to see if I get a reply to my question on their editorial
> policy regarding image manipulation and specifically the gun thing.
> If it is their policy to edit guns out of images, I'm curious what the
> context is. It's rare, but when I just want to waste time for no real
> purpose, starting from what's real and seeing where Rich goes with it
> works.
> Vance <vance.l...@gmail.com> wrote in news:124a19dc-5d1a-46c3-b822-
> d58b073af...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> > On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
> >> > Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
> >> > guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
> >> > propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
> >> > picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a
> gun
> >> > at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images
> of
> >> > guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots.
> > But
> >> > their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
> >> > back of the thing.
> >> Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
> >> newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
> >> SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
> >> newspaper and their policies.
> >> ...but you found it.
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Savageduck
> > It's just Rich being Rich. The implication he's trying to make is
> > this is a typical example of left wing journalism/reportage.
> > Actually, I'm a little surprised at his restraint. He recognized it
> > as a 'joke' image and doesn't even try to imply that it is a
> > 'reputable' news organization. Just out of curiosity, I e-mailed
> > Toronto Now for their editorial policy on manipulated images and most
> > specifically their policy on guns/weapons in images.
> > What doesn't surprise me is that he thinks this is relevant somehow to
> > what news organizations do.
> > Vance
> That one image is a joke and isn't the core of the argument, the argument
> came about because they had a nut-job leftist policy of manipulating
> images to remove guns. If you people are ok with that manipulation, I
> fear for the integrity of the press.
Truly amazing.
The joke image isn't the core of the argument. Agreed.
The argument arose because it was asserted that, for whatever reason,
they edit out guns from images. Asserted and assumed true for
purposes of argument, but unfounded by example, common knowledge, or
knowledge that would be considered readily and publicly available.
What's missing and what I find amazing is no argument actually exists.
If there were an argument, it would have to be along the lines that
the manipulation of images by editing out guns (or anything else for
that matter) meaningfully effects the integrity of the press in a
negative manner as the term press is commonly understood. It can't be
the act of editing in, or editing out guns, because the joke image is
okay. Since the joke image is okay, even though it is an example of
image manipulation, and would be okay in either a left/liberal or
right/conservative press publication, it is okay because of the
context. It necessarily follows that, even broadening the common
understanding of the term press to include something like Toronto Now
when what is being done is in the context of reporting, it would have
to be an image that violated the expected and necessary criteria for
documentary images as reportage.
Until that context, that foundation is made (mere assertion won't do
it), what you posted is BS. The Duck recognizes the necessary
context, it's right there in his posts. That's not surprising, or
even really notable because he is an intelligent and reasoning man,
even when I don't agree with him. I mention his posts because you
seem a little weak in this area and they're good examples of informal
rational argument. So that you know what you're looking at (no I
don't believe you'll do that) a simple technical description is that
would be the successful attack against of an opposing viewpoints
foundation. The counter move is, of course, the successful rebuttal
of the attack. You have a computer, so I will leave looking up what a
rebuttal means as an exercise for you, if needed and I AM NOT implying
that you do. Rebuttal has a precise definition and a lot of people
think they know what it means when they really don't. It's just one
of those words that people get a sense of from hearing/seeing it in a
context, but don't really know what it means. There are a lot of
words like that and everyone does it.
The original post was a rant and I am responding to a rant. Rants are
fine, but no matter how much makeup you slap on this pig, to actually
have an argument you need another animal.
Like I've said, sometimes a Rich post is a great way to while away a
little time to no useful purpose. I know you're not really interested
in a true argument and I don't have the slightest interest in trying
to change your mind or educating you. This has simply been a pleasant
period of personal entertainment, so thanks for the opportunity. By
the way, without any context to refer to, I'm just fine with their
manipulating images. I'm just that kind of liberal.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:50:25 -0500, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:
: On 2/10/2012 11:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
: > On 2012-02-10 06:11:00 -0800, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
: >
: >> Doesn't surprise me that they (as a policy) edit out any images of
: >> guns from pictures. As a left-lib urban rag, that kind of Stalinist
: >> propagandizing is normal. This came to light because they posted a
Stalin edited guns *out* of Soviet publications?! I'll bet that comes as news
to anyone who remembers the jingoistic militarism of much of Stalin's
propaganda.
: >> picture on their website of the mayor (whom they hate) pointing a gun
: >> at his head (a fake joke image). But they literally remove images of
: >> guns from real-life photos. Must produce some odd-looking shots. But
: >> their real money comes from porn and prostitute ads they run in the
: >> back of the thing.
: >>
: >> www.nowtoronto.com : >
: > Why is it the site you posted doesn't seem to resemble a reputable
: > newspaper, left or right in any way? I wouldn't compare it with the
: > SacBee, NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, WSJ, or any other decent
: > newspaper and their policies.
: >
: > ...but you found it.
: : : What does surprise me is that I don't think he ever quoted the Onion as : a serious web site.
