Finally, a headline writer with some guts/balls.

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here. Although the story
itself does not say that the man died while trying to steal the power
lines - which is disappointing.

-------------------------------

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2310705&spid=

Ill. man killed trying to steal power lines

Posted 10/14/11 12:11 p.m.

ALTON, Ill. (WLS) - Authorities near Alton in southwestern Illinois are
investigating the electrocution of a man whose body was found near
snipped electrical power lines investigators believe he was trying to
steal.

Madison County Coroner Stephen Nonn says 34-year-old Mark Becker of
Granite City was found dead early Friday. Investigators believe he died
Thursday night.

Nonn says evidence at the scene suggests that Becker made contact with
charged overhead power lines after they had been cut from the utility
pole.

The coroner says an investigation by Madison County sheriff's deputies
and interviews with witnesses "failed to reveal any legitimate or lawful
activity in which (Becker) would be engaged involving the utility
infrastructure."

Nonn says an autopsy Friday confirmed that Becker was electrocuted.

Home Guy wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here when I started this thread
back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word
"allegedly" in this media story:

===============================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/m...tealing-wiring

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT

HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

Robert Neville wrote in
:

Home Guy wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

If you google that, you'll find it NOT universally true. Depends on state
law. AT first glance, Texas and Rhode Island may be exceptions.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Home Guy wrote:

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

Don't believe what "everyone" says or what you read on the internet. You might
find this reference from Radford University Law interesting though:

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/class/law/1.5libel.html

Of particular interest is the fact that use of the word "allegedly" offers no
legal protection - it's just being politically correct, and that while relatives
of dead people can continue a libel suit, it's rarely possible start a suit if
the target is already dead.

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here when I started this thread
back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word
"allegedly" in this media story:

===============================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/m...dly-stealing-w
iring

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT

HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to
steal." any different from "allegedly"?

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper
or newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched
by the dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to steal." any different
from "allegedly"?

Who's saying that it is different? Or the same?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, you don't say that a
duck alledgedly walked and sqawked. You say that a duck walked and
squawked.

If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper
or newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched
by the dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to steal." any different
from "allegedly"?

Who's saying that it is different? Or the same?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, you don't say that a
duck alledgedly walked and sqawked. You say that a duck walked and
squawked.

who cares what the duck did?



If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

of course there is always that niggling possibility that he actually heard
noises in the facility, decided to investigate, stumbled upon the tools, scared
off the real perps and somehow contacted the live power cable and electrocuted
himself.

Odds are that your interpretation is spot on, but I hate it when conclusions are
jumped to and that leads to not investigating other possibilities

On Oct 15, 2:07*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Home Guy wrote:
Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here when I started this thread
back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word
"allegedly" in this media story:

===============================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/m...le-allegedly-s...
iring

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT

HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to
steal." any different from "allegedly"?

Even though every fiber of my being tells me not to, I'll defend Home
Guy here.

He said: "Finally, a *headline writer* with some guts/balls."

In the vast majority of instances, the author of the article (e.g. the
person who used the words "investigators believe") is not the same
person who write the headlines.

Headlines are usually written by the copy editors as they piece the
paper together, trying to fit everything onto the pages while grabbing
your attention so that you'll buy their paper and/or hang around their
website.

In this case, the copy editor had the sack to leave out the word
"allegedly". In addition, the author simply regurgitated what the
"investigators believe" and didn't write anything that could be
considered libelous or non-libelous.

In article , Home Guy wrote:

If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

You do if you want to avoid court. That is pretty much the first week
of Communications Law in J-school. You say allegedly until the judge
and/or jury says otherwise because if the judge and/or jury and/or the
DA tosses out the charge the paper or station or individual can be sued.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Finally, a headline writer with some guts/balls.

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here. Although the story
itself does not say that the man died while trying to steal the power
lines - which is disappointing.

-------------------------------

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2310705&spid=


Where's the .jpg of him looking like burnt toast like a squirrel shorting
out some three phase 440 lines?

Steve

On 10/15/2011 6:03 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In , Home wrote:

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper
or newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched
by the dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to steal." any different
from "allegedly"?

Who's saying that it is different? Or the same?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, you don't say that a
duck alledgedly walked and sqawked. You say that a duck walked and
squawked.

who cares what the duck did?



If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

of course there is always that niggling possibility that he actually heard
noises in the facility, decided to investigate, stumbled upon the tools, scared
off the real perps and somehow contacted the live power cable and electrocuted
himself.

Odds are that your interpretation is spot on, but I hate it when conclusions are
jumped to and that leads to not investigating other possibilities

Exactly, it is just common sense to investigate stuff rather than
jumping to conclusions.

I am sure home guy would have no issues at all if say a sexual predator
was hanging out by schoolyards and home guy just happened to be in the
area and had spilled a milkshake on his pants so his picture was
prominently featured on all of the news media that evening as the sexual
predator. After all if it looks like a duck...

On 10/15/2011 9:49 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , Home wrote:

If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

You do if you want to avoid court. That is pretty much the first week
of Communications Law in J-school. You say allegedly until the judge
and/or jury says otherwise because if the judge and/or jury and/or the
DA tosses out the charge the paper or station or individual can be sued.


And unless you are omniscient you also do it if you have common sense.
Often things are not what they appear to be.

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in
:

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper
or newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be
launched by the dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to steal." any
different from "allegedly"?

Who's saying that it is different? Or the same?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, you don't say that a
duck alledgedly walked and sqawked. You say that a duck walked and
squawked.

who cares what the duck did?



If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

of course there is always that niggling possibility that he actually
heard noises in the facility, decided to investigate, stumbled upon
the tools, scared off the real perps and somehow contacted the live
power cable and electrocuted himself.

Realize just hypothetical speculation but IF it were the case,

Decided to investigate? WTF for and by what right? Just because something
taps ones nosiness says they can go to play Snoop Sister? Need to limit
themself to picking up a phone and making a call.


Odds are that your interpretation is spot on, but I hate it when
conclusions are jumped to and that leads to not investigating other
possibilities

On Oct 15, 6:25*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:07*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-





wrote:
In article , Home Guy wrote:
Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here when I started this thread
back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word
"allegedly" in this media story:

===============================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/m...le-allegedly-s....
iring

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT

HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to
steal." any different from "allegedly"?

Even though every fiber of my being tells me not to, I'll defend Home
Guy here.

He said: "Finally, a *headline writer* with some guts/balls."

In the vast majority of instances, the author of the article (e.g. the
person who used the words "investigators believe") is not the same
person who write the headlines.

Headlines are usually written by the copy editors as they piece the
paper together, trying to fit everything onto the pages while grabbing
your attention so that you'll buy their paper and/or hang around their
website.

In this case, the copy editor had the sack to leave out the word
"allegedly". In addition, the author simply regurgitated what the
"investigators believe" and didn't write anything that could be
considered libelous or non-libelous.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another way out is to quote "an unknown witness at the scene".

Jimmie

On Oct 15, 12:34*pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

Don't believe what "everyone" says or what you read on the internet. You might
find this reference from Radford University Law interesting though:

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/class/law/1.5libel.html

Of particular interest is the fact that use of the word "allegedly" offers no
legal protection - it's just being politically correct, and that while relatives
of dead people can continue a libel suit, it's rarely possible start a suit if
the target is already dead.

I think you might be going a bit far interpreting what the
legal website means by saying that the word allegedly
offers no legal protection. In the example given, they
say that saying "She allegedly has aids" is the same
thing as saying "She has aids."

I would agree that would seem correct if the person
making that statement is the one actually making the allegation or
knows the allegation comes from a dubious source, may not be true,
etc.
For example, if I'm having a dispute with someone and
put up on the web that "Mary allegedly has aids", for
spite, it's clear that adding allegedly isn't a defense.

However if a reporter is covering an arrest for burglary
and writes:

"John was arrested for allegedly stealing wire."

I'd say that is very different from the reporter leaving out
the word allegedly and writing:

"John was arrested for stealing wire"

The first statement is 100% true and that in and of itself
eliminates any libel. The second is NOT ture
because it states he actually stole the wire, which
he may not have.

If the paper leaves out the word allegedly, then they
have done exactly what your legal website says NOT to do:

"For instance, in reporting an arrest, one reports the fact of the
arrest. One does not say "Joe Smith was arrested for committing arson,
police said" but rather: "Police have charged Joe Smith with arson."
Reporting the charge (not an arrest for something) is factually
correct and is also ethical in that you do not presume guilt."

" wrote:

However if a reporter is covering an arrest for burglary and writes:

"John was arrested for allegedly stealing wire."

I'd say that is very different from the reporter leaving out
the word allegedly and writing:

"John was arrested for stealing wire"

Your 2 statements above are never written that way.

You always find that the statements always go something like:

"A theft of wire was investigated by police. A suspect was being
sought. John was taken into custody or John was arrested by police."
Or "Police have made an arrest in a wire-theft case. Taken into custody
was John."

The first statement is 100% true and that in and of itself
eliminates any libel. The second is NOT ture because it
states he actually stole the wire, which he may not have.

Saying that "John was arrested for stealing wire" can be a true
statement.

The police have to have a reason to arrest you. If John was taken into
custody, then yes he was arrested, so that part is true. If he was
arrested for stealing wire, then again that's true. It's up to the
courts to decide if he really is guilty of stealing wire.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:45:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:34*pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

Don't believe what "everyone" says or what you read on the internet. You might
find this reference from Radford University Law interesting though:

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/class/law/1.5libel.html

Of particular interest is the fact that use of the word "allegedly" offers no
legal protection - it's just being politically correct, and that while relatives
of dead people can continue a libel suit, it's rarely possible start a suit if
the target is already dead.

I think you might be going a bit far interpreting what the
legal website means by saying that the word allegedly
offers no legal protection. In the example given, they
say that saying "She allegedly has aids" is the same
thing as saying "She has aids."

What's wrong with having aids? Oh, AIDS!

I would agree that would seem correct if the person
making that statement is the one actually making the allegation or
knows the allegation comes from a dubious source, may not be true,
etc.

Right, very good point.

For example, if I'm having a dispute with someone and
put up on the web that "Mary allegedly has aids", for
spite, it's clear that adding allegedly isn't a defense.

However if a reporter is covering an arrest for burglary
and writes:

"John was arrested for allegedly stealing wire."

I'd say that is very different from the reporter leaving out
the word allegedly and writing:

"John was arrested for stealing wire"

The first statement is 100% true and that in and of itself
eliminates any libel. The second is NOT ture
because it states he actually stole the wire, which
he may not have.

Real my whole post before replying to this part.

You're making a good point, but I don't like the second part of your
example. Saying he was arrested for stealing wire is not saying he
actually stole the wire. Not unless it's agreed that the police only
arrest guilty people, and even the police will tell you that's not so.

However I think papers are in the good habit of saying allegedly at
almost every turn. It's easier to do that than to figure out each
time whether it's needed or not.

If the paper leaves out the word allegedly, then they
have done exactly what your legal website says NOT to do:

"For instance, in reporting an arrest, one reports the fact of the
arrest. One does not say "Joe Smith was arrested for committing arson,

In this one -- I haven't reviewed the one above again** -- I see two
ways to read the sentence. He was arrested for arson because the
police believe he committed arson, or he was arrested for the arson
that he committed. Since readers coudl easily think of the second one
and only t he second one, "allegedly" is a darn good idea.

**Oh, yeah your first example is just like the second one, in words,
but for some reason I thought of my first kind of elaboration on the
sentence and only that one. Not the second.

police said" but rather: "Police have charged Joe Smith with arson."
Reporting the charge (not an arrest for something) is factually
correct and is also ethical in that you do not presume guilt."

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:25:38 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here

Either it was by me, or I thought about it and didn't post, or I
should have thought of it and didn't, or the guy wasn't dead. People
did give the reason of libel suits, didn't they?

The fifth possibility is that they are in the habit of saying
allegedly and it's easier to always do so than to make a choice each
time, because assuredly they will eventually choose wrong and open
themselves up to a libel suit when the guy can prove he's innocent.

In the US iirc, a successful libel suit has to show that the
statements were false. In Britain, the alleged libeler has to show
that the statements he made were true. Makes people accused of libel
in England much more vulnerable Truth is a defense in both places bu
the burden of proof is on the respondent in England.

when I started this thread
back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word
"allegedly" in this media story:

===============================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/m...tealing-wiring

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT

HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:20:15 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper
or newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched
by the dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to steal." any different
from "allegedly"?

Who's saying that it is different? Or the same?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, you don't say that a
duck alledgedly walked and sqawked. You say that a duck walked and
squawked.

But being a duck and walking and squawking aren't bad things.

If you find some dead boob on the ground beside some cut power cables
and cutting tools nearby in a facility that he had to break into, you
don't be a namby pamby and say he was "allegedly" trying to steal the
power cable. You say that he died while trying to steal the cable.

Whether it's libel or not, newspapers shouldn't say what they don't
know. You think stealing is the only explanation, but there are
always other ones. Maybe he was delusional and thought the
electricty was being used by mind control experts who could listen to
what was said in every home and business that the power line supplied,
and could insert ideas in the heads of those who lived and worked
there, and he was protecting them.

Or he was doing vandalism for political reasons, a miniature version
of bombing a power plant.

Have you noticed that the TV, and even the radio often now use
"believe" where they should be using "say"?

George Bush believes, Barak Obama beliieves. Probably not even their
wives actually know what they believe, only what they say. Yesterday
on NPR they interviewd a guy who uses freezing peoiple for a ver short
time as a way to increase their stamina and the interviewer said he
believes in it. He makes and sells the equipment, so oif course he
*says* it works. She should of just said "he said it works".

Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

In article ,
Red Green wrote:


of course there is always that niggling possibility that he actually
heard noises in the facility, decided to investigate, stumbled upon
the tools, scared off the real perps and somehow contacted the live
power cable and electrocuted himself.

Realize just hypothetical speculation but IF it were the case,

Decided to investigate? WTF for and by what right? Just because something
taps ones nosiness says they can go to play Snoop Sister?

"I heard shouting, screaming and noises of a general kerfufle so being a good
citizen/samaritan I decided to investigate and offer whatever help I could"


Need to limit themself to picking up a phone and making a call.

yes, because the first thing you are taugh in first aid class is to try and
stabilize the "victim" and then call for help. But I guess you would rather lose
those precious minutes?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:26:41 -0400, micky
wrote:


Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

That "appears" to be true :-/

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer: ‘Protests Have Spread to 1,000 Countries’"

On Oct 16, 1:55*pm, Home Guy wrote:
" wrote:
However if a reporter is covering an arrest for burglary and writes:

"John was arrested for allegedly stealing wire."

I'd say that is very different from the reporter leaving out
the word allegedly and writing:

"John was arrested for stealing wire"

Your 2 statements above are never written that way.


Here's a couple or current examples from ABC News stating it exactly
that way:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=14720917
By ALYSSA NEWCOMB and LUCHINA FISHER (@luchina)
Oct. 12, 2011

"A Florida man was arrested Wednesday for allegedly hacking into the
emails of Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis and other high-wattage stars
and leaking private photos of the women to Internet sites. "

Or how about these:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201..._for_al_1.html

A 43-year-old Morristown man has been arrested for allegedly molesting
a 10-year-old girl after offering to help her after she fell off her
scooter.


http://www.kvue.com/news/Terror-susp...131565413.html

"Terror suspect allegedly tried to hire Zetas drug cartel ."








You always find that the statements always go something like:


Per the above, no they don't


"A theft of wire was investigated by police. *A suspect was being
sought. *John was taken into custody or John was arrested by police."
Or "Police have made an arrest in a wire-theft case. *Taken into custody
was John."

The first statement is 100% true and that in and of itself
eliminates any libel. * The second is NOT ture because it
states he actually stole the wire, which he may not have.

Saying that "John was arrested for stealing wire" can be a true
statement.

Can be ture is not the same as is true. What exactly is your
problem with giving someone the benefit of the doubt until
they are actually conviced?





The police have to have a reason to arrest you. *If John was taken into
custody, then yes he was arrested, so that part is true. *If he was
arrested for stealing wire, then again that's true. *It's up to the
courts to decide if he really is guilty of stealing wire.

As someone pointed out, how would you like it if
they arrested you at a playground, mistaking you
for the child molester and the paper ran the story:

Homeguy was arrested today for molesting a child on the local school
grounds before you had a trial? Maybe you
wouldn't care. But all the news organizations obviously
do, so they insert the allegedly to be fair and help
avoid a lawsuit.

On Oct 16, 2:17*pm, micky wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:25:38 -0400, Home Guy wrote:
Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here

Either it was by me, or I thought about it and didn't post, or I
should have thought of it and didn't, or the guy wasn't dead. * People
did give the reason of libel suits, didn't they?

The fifth possibility is that they are in the habit of saying
allegedly and it's easier to always do so than to make a choice each
time, because assuredly they will eventually choose wrong and open
themselves up to a libel suit when the guy can prove he's innocent. *


I tried to make that point to Homeguy a couple months ago
when he last brought this subject up. If you're running a
news organization who's going to decide when to use the
word allegedly and when not too? What would be the
criteria? And how much time are
you going to waste each time you have to decide. The
news organization doesn't want to be making the call
if the party in question really did commit the offense or not,
for ethical as well as legal reasons.
Simple solution is to always use "allegedly". Don't think
any of us have a problem with that, with one exception.

Just how f*ing stupid do you have to be to try and steal
live power lines? Sheeeesh!

In article , "Crispy" wrote:

Just how f*ing stupid do you have to be to try and steal
live power lines? Sheeeesh!

never under-estimate the power of a public school education

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" wrote
in message
...
In article , "Crispy"
wrote:

Just how f*ing stupid do you have to be to try and steal
live power lines? Sheeeesh!

never under-estimate the power of a public school
education

LOL

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:16:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:26:41 -0400, micky
wrote:


Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

That "appears" to be true :-/

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer: ‘Protests Have Spread to 1,000 Countries’"

LOL. She may be including the 900 counties on Jupiter that are
having protests.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:58 -0400, micky wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:16:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:26:41 -0400, micky
wrote:


Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

That "appears" to be true :-/

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer: ‘Protests Have Spread to 1,000 Countries’"

LOL. She may be including the 900 counties on Jupiter that are
having protests.

No, she was thinking about Uranus.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:48:17 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:58 -0400, micky wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:16:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:26:41 -0400, micky
wrote:


Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

That "appears" to be true :-/

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer: ‘Protests Have Spread to 1,000 Countries’"

LOL. She may be including the 900 counties on Jupiter that are
having protests.

No, she was thinking about Uranus.

Allegedly?

/smirk

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:40:09 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:48:17 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:58 -0400, micky wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:16:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:26:41 -0400, micky
wrote:


Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

That "appears" to be true :-/

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer: ‘Protests Have Spread to 1,000 Countries’"

LOL. She may be including the 900 counties on Jupiter that are
having protests.

No, she was thinking about Uranus.

Allegedly?

/smirk

Allegedly thinking?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:42:19 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:40:09 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:48:17 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:58 -0400, micky wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:16:11 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:26:41 -0400, micky
wrote:


Reporters and people in general shouldn't say things they don't know.

That "appears" to be true :-/

"ABC’s Diane Sawyer: ‘Protests Have Spread to 1,000 Countries’"

LOL. She may be including the 900 counties on Jupiter that are
having protests.

No, she was thinking about Uranus.

Allegedly?

/smirk

Allegedly thinking?

Sure! Allegedly.