On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:43:32 -0800 John Andersen <jsa@pen.homeip.net> wrote:
The only purpose of this site and their paper version is to stir up controversy. Most of their stories are full of "no truth" and "half truth" stories. If any of their stories are based on actual fact I would be surprised.
That's not fair. The Inq is a decent enough rag; and Mike Magee (who also founded the Register) is apparently an OK bloke.
What the Inquirer is not is the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth. It's a tabloid site, and includes speculation, rumour and "we heard $foo from $bar". It holds gossip; some of which is correct and some of which isn't.
cheers,
Gideon.
So then it would seem that Ken and Gideon agree 100% on the quality and believability of the rag in question....
This is "next". One says that there is no factual basis to ANY of the INQ stories: the other says that, in common with the rest of the world's media, that some of it may not be "the whole, complete, and unvarnished truth". I don't think the latter creature exists ( and I know of no fossilised remains, either). I don't see an equilvalence here. The first is merely silly, the second, a rational approach to what is offered on the INQ site. Fred has called me a "total moron" (OK, Fred, I forgive you!), but can't we get some sense of perspective into this thread? Terence