wake_up_bomb wrote: What do you mean specific development, weird choice of words, you basically asked to have my thread moved from todays news in the third post before I'd even had a chance to post any news.

Basically you're saying to be considered "todays news" it has to have happened today?

Guevarista wrote: I would say that's a reasonable definition of 'today's news', wouldn't you?! Not necessarily literally today, but obviously threads in 'today's news' should deal with recent events. I'm not sure what the big deal is because people have still been contributing to the thread, so what's the problem?

wake_up_bomb wrote: The problem is an uppity little cunt who likes to run around the forum citing rules and regulations, and trying to get people banned or shut up, are you aware of him
On your other point, I'd say somebody taking an interest in something is a specific development, so therefore any subject which somebody has reported on "Today" is today's news, now you seem to think if I report it it's not "today's news", but if the guardian or some other reports it it is?

For clarity News is the plural of New. If it ain't new it ain't news!

oioioi wrote: So basically any "new thread" on any subject, even a new subject that no media outlet has reported on yet, could be eligible for todays news?

Oi can you clarify this too:
Would news relating to the war on terror be considered, like the thread on climate change, to not be today's news?

Guevarista wrote: If you think I'm an "uppity little cunt" that's entirely up to you. Bit rude and childish really, considering I haven't said one word out of place to you. If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you go back to the moderation team and state that this general thread about climate change should be moved back to 'today's news'? Tell them they're 'uppity little cunts' as well, see how you get on...

novum wrote:
I suggest a separate category for now so it's distinct enough. In time it can be made a sub-forum of Today's News. Not too bothered either way tbh.

Guevarista wrote:
No.

'New' information, not a 'New' thread about an old topic.

Guevarista wrote:
why not? you and me can make and write news ourselves. maybe its even better that way. if you can be on scene reporting thats awesome. if you attended something and make a report about it , super cool. otherwise its just opinion on things other people reported.
so its kinda like todays opinions.

oioioi wrote: So basically you can't post any stories about 9/11 or the war on terror, unless the mainstream media, or official channels of such information does so first?

oioioi wrote:
Seperate it is, done. The description is a bit, well , just a repetition of the title so if anyone wants to come up with something better i can change it.

and yep it can be made a subcategory of todays news again with the press of a button whenever.

batou wrote: Yeah rather than today's mainstream media opinions regurgitated.

yeah i think so, its better than to repeat propaganda. dissect the news and lets not take it at face value.

Guevarista wrote:
Eh?

Where'd you get that idea?

I regularly use Indymedia for sources.

Ok so how does indymedia get it's information for a story on 9/11 or climate change or international conflicts etc, if not through the same official channels as the MSM?

Guevarista wrote:
Do you read indymedia?

There were/are people willing to track down the key people in the bigger stories purely for the sake of establishing the facts.

oioioi wrote: So you're reading people's opinions on subjects.
The main point of this is that I tried to do that with the subject of climate change, collect a range of sources from the "key people" specifically asking for no derails (to no avail) yet after 3 posts the thread was moved, that imo would have served as a better source for climate news than the occasional atomised article from the Independent or new scientist, surely you would prefer news on a topic to be in a thread relating to that topic and not atomised and divided up throughout the various pages of todays news?

Can I just check if I'm understanding things correctly?

News articles will go in the news section, and debate on that article will be in another thread in the new section. If that's correct, then I don't see what Gue's unhappy with, because all the relevant 'factual' reports can be kept together where they form an expanding reference, without being lost among debate posts. Or have I got it wrong?

It gets a bit complicated where theoretically, when stuff's been in news for a bit, it's shifted to the other sub-sections (isn't it?) - but that's when it could be added to the reference stuff on the same subject that's not actually 'new / news'. Is it too complicated?

Maybe we need to be clear on what the word 'news' means. It is a difficult word. It's not like it's slipped into everyday use in language, or anything.

- Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
- A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
- New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
- Current events; important or interesting recent happenings

Therefore, if I were to post something about Operation Ajax, which occurred in 1953, this would not be 'news'. If the US government made a public statement tomorrow on Operation Ajax, this would be 'news'. I would have thought this was quite a simple distinction to understand.

Gue's unhappy because the last time he tried to make a thread to collect news on climate change it got moved and taken off topic amongst posts on a subject I expressly requested would not be a part of the thread..
So I'm also unhappy at the obvious double standards on display by some here.

edit 2 add:
Current events; important or interesting recent happenings
So did you forget about that one when you bleated for my thread to be moved before it had even started?