RENO NEWSPAPER DEFENDS REPORTING ON GLIDER ACCIDENT

August 30, 2006

Reno, Nevada: A spokesperson at the Reno Daily Review & Journal
Dispatch defended charges of plagiarism today, arguing that material
gathered by one of that city's most respected newspapers was in the
public domain and thus did not necessarily require attribution.

Said a senior editor, "Our reporters leave no stone unturned when
investigating a major story like the recent glider and jet collision.
When facts are made clear based on authoritative sources in the
aviation community, we are under no obligation to waste time and money
reverifying the same facts twelve times over, or seeking to determine
which expert first made a statement on which all seem to agree."

A reporter for that newspaper elaborated. "Used to, we hadda go out and
shoot photos, find witnesses, interview people involved--IF we could
find them and IF they would talk to us. But with the Internet, it's
simple. Just find the right newsgroup or blog and everything you could
possibly wanna know is already there--within a few hours. Like this
glider thing yesterday. Who woulda thought to ask about this gizmo the
glider guy was supposed to be using: a transporter or tricorder or
something? Some guy on the Web said he mighta turned it off. But what
do I know? I just lift what the experts say and it goes right into the
article. That's not plagiarism, that's just good journalism. In the old
days, the pilot woulda lawyered out and everyone woulda been No
Comment. Now his buddies on rec.aviation.soaring tell us everything we
wanna know and then some. Some o' these folks just talk and talk and
talk. So why kill yourself tryin' to get an interview? With a PC and
the Internet, gettin' facts and quotes is like shootin' fish in a
barrel. Speakin' o' which, I got enough stuff off the glider guys in
two hours today for the next three articles. So I'm goin' fishin'."

Spokespersons at the paper refused comment on a rumored practice
referred to as "chumming"; i.e., news outlets firing off quick or
controversial headlines in the hopes of generating buzz on the Internet
and further information that could be spun into subsequent articles.

SoarPoint
;o)

"SoarPoint" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> RENO NEWSPAPER DEFENDS REPORTING ON GLIDER ACCIDENT
>
> August 30, 2006
>
> Reno, Nevada: A spokesperson at the Reno Daily Review & Journal
> Dispatch defended charges of plagiarism today, arguing that material
> gathered by one of that city's most respected newspapers was in the
> public domain and thus did not necessarily require attribution.
>
> Said a senior editor, "Our reporters leave no stone unturned when
> investigating a major story like the recent glider and jet collision.
> When facts are made clear based on authoritative sources in the
> aviation community, we are under no obligation to waste time and money
> reverifying the same facts twelve times over, or seeking to determine
> which expert first made a statement on which all seem to agree."
>
> A reporter for that newspaper elaborated. "Used to, we hadda go out and
> shoot photos, find witnesses, interview people involved--IF we could
> find them and IF they would talk to us. But with the Internet, it's
> simple. Just find the right newsgroup or blog and everything you could
> possibly wanna know is already there--within a few hours. Like this
> glider thing yesterday. Who woulda thought to ask about this gizmo the
> glider guy was supposed to be using: a transporter or tricorder or
> something? Some guy on the Web said he mighta turned it off. But what
> do I know? I just lift what the experts say and it goes right into the
> article. That's not plagiarism, that's just good journalism. In the old
> days, the pilot woulda lawyered out and everyone woulda been No
> Comment. Now his buddies on rec.aviation.soaring tell us everything we
> wanna know and then some. Some o' these folks just talk and talk and
> talk. So why kill yourself tryin' to get an interview? With a PC and
> the Internet, gettin' facts and quotes is like shootin' fish in a
> barrel. Speakin' o' which, I got enough stuff off the glider guys in
> two hours today for the next three articles. So I'm goin' fishin'."
>
> Spokespersons at the paper refused comment on a rumored practice
> referred to as "chumming"; i.e., news outlets firing off quick or
> controversial headlines in the hopes of generating buzz on the Internet
> and further information that could be spun into subsequent articles.
>
> SoarPoint
> ;o)
>

The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the Internet.

Mal wrote:
> "SoarPoint" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > RENO NEWSPAPER DEFENDS REPORTING ON GLIDER ACCIDENT
> >
> > August 30, 2006
> >
> > Reno, Nevada: A spokesperson at the Reno Daily Review & Journal
> > Dispatch defended charges of plagiarism today, arguing that material
> > gathered by one of that city's most respected newspapers was in the
> > public domain and thus did not necessarily require attribution.
> >
> > Said a senior editor, "Our reporters leave no stone unturned when
> > investigating a major story like the recent glider and jet collision.
> > When facts are made clear based on authoritative sources in the
> > aviation community, we are under no obligation to waste time and money
> > reverifying the same facts twelve times over, or seeking to determine
> > which expert first made a statement on which all seem to agree."
> >
> > A reporter for that newspaper elaborated. "Used to, we hadda go out and
> > shoot photos, find witnesses, interview people involved--IF we could
> > find them and IF they would talk to us. But with the Internet, it's
> > simple. Just find the right newsgroup or blog and everything you could
> > possibly wanna know is already there--within a few hours. Like this
> > glider thing yesterday. Who woulda thought to ask about this gizmo the
> > glider guy was supposed to be using: a transporter or tricorder or
> > something? Some guy on the Web said he mighta turned it off. But what
> > do I know? I just lift what the experts say and it goes right into the
> > article. That's not plagiarism, that's just good journalism. In the old
> > days, the pilot woulda lawyered out and everyone woulda been No
> > Comment. Now his buddies on rec.aviation.soaring tell us everything we
> > wanna know and then some. Some o' these folks just talk and talk and
> > talk. So why kill yourself tryin' to get an interview? With a PC and
> > the Internet, gettin' facts and quotes is like shootin' fish in a
> > barrel. Speakin' o' which, I got enough stuff off the glider guys in
> > two hours today for the next three articles. So I'm goin' fishin'."
> >
> > Spokespersons at the paper refused comment on a rumored practice
> > referred to as "chumming"; i.e., news outlets firing off quick or
> > controversial headlines in the hopes of generating buzz on the Internet
> > and further information that could be spun into subsequent articles.
> >
> > SoarPoint
> > ;o)
> >
>
> The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the Internet.

Why don't you keep your anti-American comments to yourself? Looking at
any of your past and present posts, a grade school might lighten you
up, based on your grammar and vocabulary, and then all the events
involving the US might, and I repeat just might make a bit of sense to
you. I can believe that anyone would issue a moron like you a pilot
license.

Jacek

Washington State

SoarPoint wrote:
> RENO NEWSPAPER DEFENDS REPORTING ON GLIDER ACCIDENT
>
> August 30, 2006
>
> Reno, Nevada: A spokesperson at the Reno Daily Review & Journal
> Dispatch defended charges of plagiarism today, arguing that material
> gathered by one of that city's most respected newspapers was in the
> public domain and thus did not necessarily require attribution.
>
> Said a senior editor, "Our reporters leave no stone unturned when
> investigating a major story like the recent glider and jet collision.
> When facts are made clear based on authoritative sources in the
> aviation community, we are under no obligation to waste time and money
> reverifying the same facts twelve times over, or seeking to determine
> which expert first made a statement on which all seem to agree."
>
> A reporter for that newspaper elaborated. "Used to, we hadda go out and
> shoot photos, find witnesses, interview people involved--IF we could
> find them and IF they would talk to us. But with the Internet, it's
> simple. Just find the right newsgroup or blog and everything you could
> possibly wanna know is already there--within a few hours. Like this
> glider thing yesterday. Who woulda thought to ask about this gizmo the
> glider guy was supposed to be using: a transporter or tricorder or
> something? Some guy on the Web said he mighta turned it off. But what
> do I know? I just lift what the experts say and it goes right into the
> article. That's not plagiarism, that's just good journalism. In the old
> days, the pilot woulda lawyered out and everyone woulda been No
> Comment. Now his buddies on rec.aviation.soaring tell us everything we
> wanna know and then some. Some o' these folks just talk and talk and
> talk. So why kill yourself tryin' to get an interview? With a PC and
> the Internet, gettin' facts and quotes is like shootin' fish in a
> barrel. Speakin' o' which, I got enough stuff off the glider guys in
> two hours today for the next three articles. So I'm goin' fishin'."
>
> Spokespersons at the paper refused comment on a rumored practice
> referred to as "chumming"; i.e., news outlets firing off quick or
> controversial headlines in the hopes of generating buzz on the Internet
> and further information that could be spun into subsequent articles.
>
> SoarPoint
> ;o)

That's just too dam funny! Nice going. Before media types are born,
tey are asked, "what's it going to be kid, brains or a blow dryer?

Billy Hill, Zulu

Earlier, wrote:

> Mal wrote:

> > The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the Internet.

> Why don't you keep your anti-American comments to yourself?...

I dunno; I happen to agree with Mal that the ARPA/DARPA Internet _is_
one of the greatest weapons the US Military ever released. And, I don't
particulary see anything un-American about that statement.

As a weapon for freedom of thought and expression, as a weapon against
misinformation and disinformation, the Internet is unparalleled, and on
occasion its military creators probably regret the hell out of letting
everyone in the world get their hands on it. As John Gilmore wrote,
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Earlier, wrote:
>
> > Mal wrote:
>
> > > The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the Internet.
>
> > Why don't you keep your anti-American comments to yourself?...
>
> I dunno; I happen to agree with Mal that the ARPA/DARPA Internet _is_
> one of the greatest weapons the US Military ever released. And, I don't
> particulary see anything un-American about that statement.
>
> As a weapon for freedom of thought and expression, as a weapon against
> misinformation and disinformation, the Internet is unparalleled, and on
> occasion its military creators probably regret the hell out of letting
> everyone in the world get their hands on it. As John Gilmore wrote,
> "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
>
> Bob K.

Bob,

With all do respect: internet was not invented by the US military. Not
even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named Tim Berners-Lee,
who I believe lives in London. He was even knighted by the Queen so, he
is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But this guy Mal is insinuating that the US
military "released" the internet and if you buy to his story I don't
know what to think of it. He is using every time he can, something
against us. Every time. Don't take my word for it. Just look at his
previous postings, you can run a search with his name in it and then
you can read his uneducated, arrogant postings referring in derogatory
terms to the US. So, in conclusion his referral to the US military as
to " The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the
Internet." is aimed that us again and it is a cheap shot.

Sincerely,

Jacek

wrote:
> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > Earlier, wrote:
> >
> >
>
> With all do respect: internet was not invented by the US military. Not
> even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named Tim Berners-Lee,
> who I believe lives in London. He was even knighted by the Queen so, he
> is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But this guy Mal is insinuating that the US
> military "released" the internet and if you buy to his story I don't
> know what to think of it. He is using every time he can, something
> against us. Every time. Don't take my word for it. Just look at his
> previous postings, you can run a search with his name in it and then
> you can read his uneducated, arrogant postings referring in derogatory
> terms to the US. So, in conclusion his referral to the US military as
> to " The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the
> Internet." is aimed that us again and it is a cheap shot.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jacek

The US does enough damage to itself to worry about what someone else
says. Get over it. We have become the laughing stock of the world
because of our current leadership.

If you wish to run around defending the country (more specifically the
idiot in charge right now) you will spend your all your time doing it
at the rate the President and his henchman/women are going.

wrote:
> With all do respect: internet was not invented by the US military. Not
> even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named Tim Berners-Lee,
> who I believe lives in London. He was even knighted by the Queen so, he
> is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But this guy Mal is insinuating that the US
> military "released" the internet and if you buy to his story I don't
> know what to think of it. He is using every time he can, something
> against us. Every time. Don't take my word for it. Just look at his
> previous postings, you can run a search with his name in it and then
> you can read his uneducated, arrogant postings referring in derogatory
> terms to the US. So, in conclusion his referral to the US military as
> to " The greatest weapon USA military ever released to the world the
> Internet." is aimed that us again and it is a cheap shot.

Uh, don't confuse the "World Wide Web" (i.e. web browsers and servers)
with the "Internet". The Internet (along with email, and Usenet, on
which we were having this discussion) existed long before there was any
such thing as web browsers. And, you are completely wrong another
thing, the Internet had as its founding core ARPAnet (ARPA being the US
Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is now
known as DARPA) a US military project started in the late 60s. I
developed networking and communications equipment for ARPAnet during the
mid 70s, and I can assure you, I spent an awful lot of time at military
bases and DOD contractor sites, as well as universities...

Marc

At 17:48 31 August 2006,
wrote:

>
>Bob,
>
>With all do respect: internet was not invented by the
>US military. Not
>even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named
>Tim Berners-Lee,
>who I believe lives in London. He was even knighted
>by the Queen so, he
>is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But this guy Mal is insinuating
>that the US
>military 'released' the internet and if you buy to
>his story I don't
>know what to think of it. He is using every time he
>can, something
>against us. Every time. Don't take my word for it.
>Just look at his
>previous postings, you can run a search with his name
>in it and then
>you can read his uneducated, arrogant postings referring
>in derogatory
>terms to the US. So, in conclusion his referral to
>the US military as
>to ' The greatest weapon USA military ever released
>to the world the
>Internet.' is aimed that us again and it is a cheap
>shot.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jacek
>
>
Jacek,

With all DUE respect. The internet is a direct descendent
of the ARPANET created in the early 1970's by the US
'advanced research projects agency', later the 'defence
advanced research projects agency'.

Tim Berners Lee created the HTML document format (web
page format) and HTTP the transport protocol which
allows selection of files from web servers by URL and
carries the data for those files. Between them this
is what people call the World Wide Web. The Internet
was in existence nearly twenty years before the world
wide web and it was started by the US military. I believe
it was initially extended to US universities.

In summary Mal might have intended it as a 'cheap'
shot. But it was still the truth.

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
> At 17:48 31 August 2006,
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >With all do respect: internet was not invented by the
> >US military. Not
> >even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named
> >Tim Berners-Lee,
> >who I believe lives in London. He was even knighted
> >by the Queen so, he
> >is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But this guy Mal is insinuating
> >that the US
> >military 'released' the internet and if you buy to
> >his story I don't
> >know what to think of it. He is using every time he
> >can, something
> >against us. Every time. Don't take my word for it.
> >Just look at his
> >previous postings, you can run a search with his name
> >in it and then
> >you can read his uneducated, arrogant postings referring
> >in derogatory
> >terms to the US. So, in conclusion his referral to
> >the US military as
> >to ' The greatest weapon USA military ever released
> >to the world the
> >Internet.' is aimed that us again and it is a cheap
> >shot.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Jacek
> >
> >
> Jacek,
>
> With all DUE respect. The internet is a direct descendent
> of the ARPANET created in the early 1970's by the US
> 'advanced research projects agency', later the 'defence
> advanced research projects agency'.
>
> Tim Berners Lee created the HTML document format (web
> page format) and HTTP the transport protocol which
> allows selection of files from web servers by URL and
> carries the data for those files. Between them this
> is what people call the World Wide Web. The Internet
> was in existence nearly twenty years before the world
> wide web and it was started by the US military. I believe
> it was initially extended to US universities.
>
> In summary Mal might have intended it as a 'cheap'
> shot. But it was still the truth.

To All,

I received a several emails with a clarification for which I thank you.
I was angry at the Mal character, and still am, and in the moment of
spite I typed something which I remembered from the past without
actually finding some more information about the subject. So, I
apologize for my mistake, but not to Mal for he is taking a cheap shots
in the present as well as in the past.

Sincerely,

Jacek
Washington State

wrote:
>
> With all do respect: internet was not invented by the US military. Not
> even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named Tim Berners-Lee,
> who I believe lives in London.
>
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. Bob is right.

The Internet grew from ARPANET, which was a Pentagon project to develop
a robust network that could automatically route round damaged or failing
sections. Its secret is that it was a packet switched network rather
than circuit switched, like the phone. Packet switching was first
demonstrated at the National Physical Laboratories in Teddington, a
suburb of London.

The Internet dates from the early 80s and provided e-mail, file transfer
(ftp) and newsgroups as its initial services.

The World Wide Web, which Tim Berners-Lee developed at CERN, arrived
about 10 years later and is NOT "The Internet" - the Web is merely
another service that the Internet makes available.

I, and many others, were using the Internet before Berners-Lee had his
inspiration and can clearly remember the appearance of the first web
browsers - first Mosaic and Cello, followed by Netscape with MS and IE
bringing up the rear.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

wrote:
> I typed something which I remembered from the past without
> actually finding some more information about the subject.

Jacek,

If you're interested in technical histories, in this case of the
Internet, I recommend "A Brief History of the Future" by John Naughton.
Its a good, readable account by a technical journalist who has been
online longer than most.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Andrew Warbrick wrote:
>> At 17:48 31 August 2006,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bob,
>> >
>> >With all do respect: internet was not invented by the
>> >US military. Not
>> >even close. Internet was developed by Englishman named
>> >Tim Berners-Lee,
>> >who I believe lives in London. He was even knighted
>> >by the Queen so, he
>> >is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But this guy Mal is insinuating
>> >that the US
>> >military 'released' the internet and if you buy to
>> >his story I don't
>> >know what to think of it. He is using every time he
>> >can, something
>> >against us. Every time. Don't take my word for it.
>> >Just look at his
>> >previous postings, you can run a search with his name
>> >in it and then
>> >you can read his uneducated, arrogant postings referring
>> >in derogatory
>> >terms to the US. So, in conclusion his referral to
>> >the US military as
>> >to ' The greatest weapon USA military ever released
>> >to the world the
>> >Internet.' is aimed that us again and it is a cheap
>> >shot.
>> >
>> >Sincerely,
>> >
>> >Jacek
>> >
>> >
>> Jacek,
>>
>> With all DUE respect. The internet is a direct descendent
>> of the ARPANET created in the early 1970's by the US
>> 'advanced research projects agency', later the 'defence
>> advanced research projects agency'.
>>
>> Tim Berners Lee created the HTML document format (web
>> page format) and HTTP the transport protocol which
>> allows selection of files from web servers by URL and
>> carries the data for those files. Between them this
>> is what people call the World Wide Web. The Internet
>> was in existence nearly twenty years before the world
>> wide web and it was started by the US military. I believe
>> it was initially extended to US universities.
>>
>> In summary Mal might have intended it as a 'cheap'
>> shot. But it was still the truth.
>
> To All,
>
> I received a several emails with a clarification for which I thank you.
> I was angry at the Mal character, and still am, and in the moment of
> spite I typed something which I remembered from the past without
> actually finding some more information about the subject. So, I
> apologize for my mistake, but not to Mal for he is taking a cheap shots
> in the present as well as in the past.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jacek
> Washington State
>

It is not a cheap shot it is a factual statement stated to me by a teacher
of information technology.

An even cheaper shot would be to call someone a Moron even worse a
uneducated Moron.

I am glad you can somewhat use the internet the power full tool that it is.

Pity you did not research your facts before your cheap shot.

Search for your Presidents IQ you will find he has the lowest IQ of all
Presidents not a cheap shot just a fact.

Tell me more on your conspiracy theory that an English man invented the
internet http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html.

Earlier, Mal wrote:

> ...Search for your Presidents IQ you
> will find he has the lowest IQ of all
> Presidents not a cheap shot just a fact.

Ah, Mal, we got ya there - that thing about Bush's IQ is a flat-out
hoax:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

So, maybe he can't pronounce "nuclear" to save his life, but at least
he's not provably stupid.

Thanks, Bob K.

> he's not provably stupid.

That debatable

3 results for: provably
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
prove /pruv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proov]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, proved, proved or prov?en,
prov?ing.

-verb (used with object) 1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by
evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.
2. Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will);
probate.
3. to give demonstration of by action.
4. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the
like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to
prove ore.
5. to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one,
esp. through one's actions.
6. Mathematics. to verify the correctness or validity of by
mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof.
7. Also, proof. Printing. to take a trial impression of (type, a cut,
etc.).
8. to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness.
9. Archaic. to experience.
-verb (used without object) 10. to turn out: The experiment proved to be
successful.
11. to be found by trial or experience to be: His story proved false.
12. (of dough) to rise to a specified lightness: Leave covered until
it has proved.

"Power full"?

"Mal" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> It is not a cheap shot it is a factual statement stated to me by a teacher
> of information technology.
>
> An even cheaper shot would be to call someone a Moron even worse a
> uneducated Moron.
>
> I am glad you can somewhat use the internet the power full tool that it
> is.
>
> Pity you did not research your facts before your cheap shot.
>
> Search for your Presidents IQ you will find he has the lowest IQ of all
> Presidents not a cheap shot just a fact.
>
> Tell me more on your conspiracy theory that an English man invented the
> internet http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html.
>