Snakes Gould wrote:1. i agree its annoying 2. understand why they have it, but dont think it should be a blazing note 3. mattias is way too mad about this situation
Matthias wrote:Because none of those tens of thousands of people call Yahoo! and say, "This is what I saw" much less have a history of being a reliable source that would qualify them to be a news feed.
Yankee Stadium being located in NYC is "common knowledge" that you can say without attributing to someone. Earth being the third planet closest to the sun is "common knowledge" that you can say without attributing to someone. The details of what happened at a particular ballpark an hour ago is something that nobody knows unless they watched it or somebody else told them about it.
Really, you should just ask this thread to be deleted or at least stop pushing it up to the top. It makes you look really bad.
What, do you work for the AP or something? Calm down. It's simply a case of the consumer (in this case Boomer) questioning the reason for something that the consumer doesn't need to see being in Yahoo's news blurbs. As has been said, the reason is probably legal or self-protective, but that's no reason to get all huffy about Boomer asking about it.
This was a non-huffy answer...
Matthias wrote:It's probably not corroboration, but attribution, unless you think Yahoo! has reporters stationed at the game.
This was a non-huffy answer...
Matthias wrote:The light bulb is 150 years old. A news agency attributing their source of information is completely different.
He got his answer but then he kept pressing the point trying to fit his understanding against the plain answer he had been given. I ignored Ursa when he made your point but whatever... I wasn't even really being huffy. I was breaking the answer down further and further and further to get him to understand the way he was thinking about things isn't how they work because he wouldn't accept it.
And to answer your question, no, I don't work for the AP. Do you work for the Internet Friendliness Commission?
Don't forget the rest of your second post there:
Matthias wrote:If you don't like it, then block it out with white-out on your computer screen.
That went from helpful (which your first post was in the ballpark of) to huffy rather quickly. I guess I don't understand why this topic upset you so much as to turn your responses negative and personal that quickly.
Do not continue to pose questions after given the answer
and
If a thread you're posting in contains several responses about how you are "not overreacting" chances are that, well, you are overreacting.
...Boston papers now and then suffer a sharp flurry of arithmetic on this score; indeed, for Williams to have distributed all his hits so they did nobody else any good would constitute a feat of placement unparalleled in the annals of selfishness. -Updike
Matthias wrote:Don't forget the rest of your second post there:
Matthias wrote:If you don't like it, then block it out with white-out on your computer screen.
That went from helpful (which your first post was in the ballpark of) to huffy rather quickly. I guess I don't understand why this topic upset you so much as to turn your responses negative and personal that quickly.
Actually I laughed when I read that. I thought he was trying to make a joke, not be rude.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Half Massed wrote:That went from helpful (which your first post was in the ballpark of) to huffy rather quickly. I guess I don't understand why this topic upset you so much as to turn your responses negative and personal that quickly.
Why are you so angry?
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias wrote:If you don't like it, then block it out with white-out on your computer screen.
Actually I laughed when I read that. I thought he was trying to make a joke, not be rude.
It was a joke. Guess individual results may vary.
Just thought I'd bug you by returning this to the top again.
Actually, I wanted to apologize for my post earlier even though it was factual at least in the post count. You've been accurate to the highest degree about the mandatory attribution that the publishing industry requires.
I worked (well still do, but not in writing) in the publishing industry for my last two jobs, and either they just feed that stuff into the text, or its much easier (albeit boring) for the writers to have the formula.
That being said, I saw one today or yesterday saying something like "The Associated Press says that Nate McLouth is having a strong season."
I mean, I guess the greater baseball public might not be too aware, but come on. I felt like smacking the blazing note.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by fezzik » Sat May 17, 2008 11:11 pm 
I thought he was trying to make a joke, not be rude.
