[nonsense variable X] is newsworthy because [nonsense variable Y] is not...
Great argument...
There remains the unfortunate fact that Paris can be proven to exist and Bigfoot is a silly little sham.
It's almost as if you believe that since you're on the JREF,
any critique you make,
no matter how inane, is 'valid' simply because you're making it on the JREF. If it helps, you're far from the only shill on the JREF that thinks that. We'll call it JREFitis™.
Anyway, my 'great argument' wasn't anything to do with so-called 'nonsense variables'. In REALITY, what I pointed out was the gist of the article was about
the demise of the BFF (and the why that may have been so). I used the Paris Hilton digression as a simple comparison of the 'subjective' nature of 'news'. Not sure why that was so hard to 'get'. Perhaps the JREFitis™ flared up?
And just so it's clear in my mind, what exactly is
your 'argument' for it
not being news? Oh yeah, because news can only be about things that we can touch. To coin a phrase...'great argument'.
It's not about Bigfoot though. It's about the internecine squabbles of Bigfooters on the internet. Don't liken it to reporting Paris Hilton's movements, liken it to a paper printing 2 pages about what "ParisLover22" said to "ParisIsASlapper" on the "ILoveParis" forum, and you'll be in the right ballpark.
If it was even about a fight at and the implosion of a Bigfoot conference, I'd be less surprised to see it there. But that much of an article dedicated to an internet forum squabble about anything, let alone Bigfoot, is patently absurd.
'Patently absurd'? How, ummmmm uhhhh, so
exactly? Internet squabble? Length of the article? Its existence period? Oh wait nevermind, I found it, that's just your opinion.
So anyway, are you saying Bigfooters and Bigfoot are not interrelated? Let's pretend you
really are saying that (you're not, right? right?): Is
Bigfoot the only subject there in that pile worth 'reporting' on and since it's
supposedly not about Bigfoot it's...errr? I mean, being that silly Bigfooters are just
people and people are never news-worthy? Wait, you mean that
just Bigfooter people - and especially ones on the Internet - aren't news-worthy? BTW, did it occur to you that Bigfoot is in fact really
and solely about Bigfooters? That they are actually, for all intents and purposes, one and the same? Probably not.
The 'reality' (that word again - whose meaning JREFitis™ often suppresses) is, and really, listen up all you 'news-worthiness' judges,
news is as news does. What's
not important to
you might actually be important to somebody else. Unbelievable huh?! Ironically, and keeping
more in line with the concept of 'honesty', I personally REALLY DON'T ******* CARE that 'this story' is
or isn't 'news-worthy' - in my
original original 'critique', I was mostly pointing out
seeming hypocrisy - that one claiming something un-news-worthy simply because its basis was rooted on <gasp> the Internet is pretty numbskull-ish given that 'same one' apparently spends what I would deem an inordinate amount of time and energy embracing that
same Internet i.e. 3,300 posts. Now, having contempt for the very things you embrace isn't a new concept, but don't be misled by thinking you won't have to ultimately answer for why that may be so.
Regardless, I'm now done addressing this stupidity. I did the best I could and yet I'm positive some of you still won't 'get it'. So please, have at it and argue amongst yourselves as to why
you all should instead be the editor of The Anywhere Times-Tribune™.
