Terri, You don't get it, do you.
Try a Google search for "real headlines 2002" and you find them on lots of sites; but if you look a little further you'll find the same "real headlines" being the best of 2001 and 2000 and I believe I traced the hoax/joke back as 1994. How many places something appears is NOT a way to judge the accuracy; in fact, I've found that true things appear in far fewer places on the web than do hoaxes or jokes or just plain mistakes. Number of sources doesn't count. Quality of source(s) does count. ==== On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:27:57 -0500, Terri FitzSimons wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, L.D. Best wrote >> Whether or not the story were true, I would feel far better if > recognized "legit" sources provided the information on the purported > crime or hoax, whichever it might be.< > Such as? The sites I listed were some of the first that came up when I > looked on Google. So many different sites giving the same information, the > same details -- not just one or two obscure sites -- indicates to me valid > information. Go look for yourself. >> Underground "news" sites most often have an agenda of their own, and > are -- by definition -- suspect.< > And NBC, CBS, etc. don't have their own agendas? "Underground" news > deals with issues that the corporate media will not touch -- usually for > reasons of corporate policy, not because said issues lack news- > worthiness. This doesn't mean the issues are not legitimate, only that > the corporate media won't publicize them. Go look at FAIR.ORG for > instance after instance of this sort of thing. > Terri A. FitzSimons -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
