Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    15 October 2003

    "Definitions" used by established journalism, in today's news:

    1. murder = "harsh human rights records"
    2. murder = "violence between Muslims and Christians in the region
    following months of relative peace"
    murdered = "have died"
    3. murder = "attack that killed"
    4. attempted murder = "a car-tire explosion"
    5. exposing crimes of murder and torture = "showing disrespect"
    "causing trouble"
    6. murderers = "rebels"
    7. murder = "an incident occurred"


    ___________
    References:

    - 'The First International Law (Version 2.0) - {HRI 20021124-V2.0}'
    (24 November 2002 - Version 2.0 on 23 Sept 2003)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

    - 'The Trinity Of Science - Truth, Love and Beauty (Version 2.0)
    {HRI 20030307-pi-1-V2.0}' (7 March 2003 - V2.0 on 5 October 2003)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


    ___________________________
    For in-depth understanding:
    'The Mafia Code Against Mankind (Version 2.0)
    - {HRI 20021018-V2.0}' (18 October 2002 - V2.0 on 10 October 2003)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


    ________
    Sources:

    1. murder = "harsh human rights records"

    'Saudi Arabia, facing international criticism over its harsh human
    rights record, is joining a regional trend toward cautious
    experiments with liberalization.'
    (Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:50 a.m. ET - RIYADH (Reuters))


    2. murder = "violence between Muslims and Christians in the region
    following months of relative peace"
    murdered = "have died"

    'At least 10 people died in attacks on four mostly Christian villages
    on Friday and Saturday, raising fears of an upsurge in violence
    between Muslims and Christians in the region following months of
    relative peace.
    At least 2,000 people have died since the conflict first erupted in
    1999.'


    3. murder = "attack that killed"

    'The attacks on Saturday by similarly dressed groups killed at least
    eight people in three villages. Police have said that they are
    investigating the raids but have made no arrests.'


    4. attempted murder = "a car-tire explosion"

    'Central Sulawesi police spokesman Agus Sugianto downplayed the
    reports, saying: "We can't say that it was a bomb at this stage. It
    could've been a tire explosion."'
    (Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:47 a.m. ET - JAKARTA (Reuters))


    5. exposing crimes = "showing disrespect," "causing trouble."

    'Thai religious authorities have warned Falun Gong members not to
    show disrespect to Chinese leaders during the APEC summit,'
    '"The Thai government has told Falun Gong not to cause trouble
    during APEC,"'
    (Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:31 a.m. ET - BEIJING (Reuters))


    6. murderers = "rebels"
    7. murder = "an incident occurred"

    'Wednesday October 15, 09:27 AM - Rebels kill 22 in Uganda bar attack
    - KAMPALA (Reuters) - Rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)
    have raided a bar in Lira district in northern Uganda, rounding up
    bar patrons and gunning them down, killing all 22 of them, an army
    spokesman says.

    "The incident occurred just after 7 p.m. local time (5 p.m. British
    time) when about 15 rebels rounded up the four women and 18 men and
    shot them to death," army spokesman, Second Lieutenant Chris Magezi
    told Reuters.'

    ----- End

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    On 15 Oct 2003 03:31:14 -0700, plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been)
    wrote:
    Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today 15 October 2003"Definitions" used by established journalism, in today's news:1. murder = "harsh human rights records"
    I'm sorry, were you unaware that if a killing is legal, it isn't a
    murder?


  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    Dear David,

    We have had 're-definition of words' described in the famous book
    '1984' by George Orwell.

    Whether it has been made legal or not, to murder someone is still
    murder. Whether it is called by the name of 'redrum' or
    'expialidocious,' murder is still murder.
    This is precisely where journalism comes in: To undo such cover-ups,
    such hiding of murder, by Criminal Minds.


    Murder is very precisely definable, regardless of whether some murder
    is "legal" or not, in some country or system.

    You can define 'murder' already by looking at the emotions of it, so
    it really is not that difficult.

    Now must I assume, that you earn a living at Reuters?


    Yours kindly,

    Leonardo



    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<3f8d250c.31436803@news.telusplanet.net>...
    On 15 Oct 2003 03:31:14 -0700, plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote:
    Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today 15 October 2003"Definitions" used by established journalism, in today's news:1. murder = "harsh human rights records"
    I'm sorry, were you unaware that if a killing is legal, it isn't a murder?

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    alunharford@yahoo.com (Alun Harford) wrote in message news:<f890d8e3.0310150943.aaccf8c@posting.google.c om>...
    I also highlighted some bits that particularly highlight my point. It's quite long, but it's a big issue. (and most people find it shocking at first so at least it's <***INSERT "not" HERE***> boring)
    Alun Harford

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    On 15 Oct 2003 03:31:14 -0700, plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote:
    Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today 15 October 2003"Definitions" used by established journalism, in today's news:1. murder = "harsh human rights records"2. murder = "violence between Muslims and Christians in the region following months of relative peace" murdered = "have died"3. murder = "attack that killed"4. attempted murder = "a car-tire explosion"5. exposing crimes of murder and torture = "showing disrespect" "causing trouble"6. murderers = "rebels"7. murder = "an incident occurred"
    None of the sources yuo cite appear to support your asertions.

    There's a gap in your logic somewhere, and life's too short to try to
    second-guess your convoluted thought processes.






    Steve Hayes
    http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm


  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    On 15 Oct 2003 09:48:08 -0700, plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been)
    wrote:
    Dear David,We have had 're-definition of words' described in the famous book'1984' by George Orwell.Whether it has been made legal or not, to murder someone is stillmurder.
    Which of course means nothing. Legal killing isn't murder.
    Never has been. Never will be. The definition of murder has
    been "The act of unlawfully killing a human being with
    premeditated malice" for centuries now. (Unless of course
    you are using it in the metaphorical sense, and journalists
    aren't supposed to rely much on metaphors.)
    You can define 'murder' already by looking at the emotions of it,
    Bull****. People commit murder calmly, or in great fury. Doesn't
    make a difference. It's still murder as long as you "unlawfully kill
    a human being with premeditated malice". Grow up.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    The respondent is understood well, as follows:


    'It is further the standard practice of criminal minds, to make them-
    selves feel as if they are

    "standing above others."

    And they have to do so, and do so indeed, by means of the most
    severe and the most atrocious lying, about themselves and
    about those "they stand above," and they do so

    especially by sneering about the very decent and about the
    very caring - about you too,

    either openly, or if the circumstances require it,
    then very secretly, or silently.

    That is not merely "their view of life" or "their entitled and
    democratic opinion about another person"

    - but it is the mechanism they use to try and smash and
    pull away and so obtain Life Energy from others, from
    you, that is, too.'


    Taken from:

    'Standard Responses Of Criminal Minds' (9 May 2003)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message news:<989886.0310152140.12e6b160@posting.google.co m>...
    Dear Alun, Thank you for the additional data and the description of the methods that these murderers use to try and force others to murder, and their methods to enforce that murder is "normal" and so on.
    Their methods to enforce that murder is "normal" are suplementary to
    their methods of killing anybody who doesn't.
    Still, in all those cases, it is murder. And that is so because it is resolved by treating it as murder, and only resolved by treating it as murder.
    So just how far are you going to blame people?
    Are you going to blame the rebel commanders? (I say yes)
    Are you going to blame the kids the abduct, who have no real choice in
    what they are going becuase the rebel commanders have a gun to their
    heads? (I say no)
    Are you going to blame the guns they use?
    Calling it anything else than what the activity actually is, is hindering or even preventing it from being handled and stopped.
    The Ugandan government has been taking your line for 17 years, and the
    'activity' is yet to be stopped, nor will it be stopped in the near
    future.

    Alun Harford

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    On 16 Oct 2003 02:44:11 -0700, plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote:
    The respondent is understood well, as follows:
    Who's the respondent?

    Who's the deponent?
    'It is further the standard practice of criminal minds, to make them- selves feel as if they are "standing above others." And they have to do so, and do so indeed, by means of the most severe and the most atrocious lying, about themselves and about those "they stand above," and they do so

    From C1, it follows that any associated supporting element is,
    apparently, determined by a descriptive fact. On the other hand, the
    theory of syntactic features developed earlier does not affect the
    structure of the traditional practice of grammarians. It must be
    emphasized, once again, that the natural general principle that will
    subsume this case cannot be arbitrary in a parasitic gap construction. If
    the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to
    movement, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort can be defined
    in such a way as to impose the requirement that branching is not tolerated
    within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
    especially by sneering about the very decent and about the very caring - about you too, either openly, or if the circumstances require it, then very secretly, or silently. That is not merely "their view of life" or "their entitled and democratic opinion about another person" - but it is the mechanism they use to try and smash and pull away and so obtain Life Energy from others, from you, that is, too.'
    Analogously, the natural general principle that will subsume this case
    is rather different from an important distinction in language use. This
    suggests that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
    independent grounds is not subject to the extended c-command discussed in
    connection with (34). Suppose, for instance, that the speaker-hearer's
    linguistic intuition is not quite equivalent to nondistinctness in the
    sense of distinctive feature theory. Thus the earlier discussion of
    deviance is, apparently, determined by a parasitic gap construction. On
    our assumptions, any associated supporting element does not affect the
    structure of the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the
    dominance scope of a complex symbol.






    Steve Hayes
    http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm


  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    The respondent suggests - by his justifying murder as "legal" - that
    he is in his present life, or has been in his past lives ('for some
    centuries now,' to quote the respondent) a "legal" murderer.

    So was it Jews that he "legally" murdered, or Cambodians, or Chinese,
    or Russians, or Japanese, or Tibetans, or Iraqis for that matter,
    etc. etc. because some Criminal Mind(*) had made it "legal" at some
    time and some place to murder those people?

    Now whether your neighbors or your family members are murdered
    "legally" or 'illegally' - it would be all the same to them, and
    indeed so it was.


    Some people - of the decent variety - can FEEL something, they have
    emotions, about others being murdered. This I mentioned, as a way
    for people to understand and know or 'feel' the definition of murder.

    Murder is very simply and very clearly 'the malicious
    killing of someone.' And that is how it always has been
    defined and how it always will be defined, no matter whether
    some Criminal Mind managed to make it "legal" in some place
    for some time.

    I suggest the footnote be read by those who wish to know more.


    Solomon Been too


    (*) - 'The First International Law (Version 2.0) - {HRI
    20021124-V2.0}'
    (24 November 2002 - Version 2.0 on 23 Sept 2003)
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    Dear Alun,

    Thanks for your comments.

    It is the activity of catching the murderers - in this case, to catch
    those who instigate and perpetuate the murdering, of course.

    That is standardly a police function, aided by the army if they can
    not do it alone. And it is hunting down ONLY the murderers, in this
    case ONLY those who instigate and perpetuate the murders.

    Not an impossible task - and one can ask and can get international
    help for that too.

    Leonardo Been



    alunharford@yahoo.com (Alun Harford) wrote in message news:<f890d8e3.0310160505.28c3a5a3@posting.google. com>...
    plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message news:<989886.0310152140.12e6b160@posting.google.co m>...
    Dear Alun, Thank you for the additional data and the description of the methods that these murderers use to try and force others to murder, and their methods to enforce that murder is "normal" and so on.
    Their methods to enforce that murder is "normal" are suplementary to their methods of killing anybody who doesn't.
    Still, in all those cases, it is murder. And that is so because it is resolved by treating it as murder, and only resolved by treating it as murder.
    So just how far are you going to blame people? Are you going to blame the rebel commanders? (I say yes) Are you going to blame the kids the abduct, who have no real choice in what they are going becuase the rebel commanders have a gun to their heads? (I say no) Are you going to blame the guns they use?
    Calling it anything else than what the activity actually is, is hindering or even preventing it from being handled and stopped.
    The Ugandan government has been taking your line for 17 years, and the 'activity' is yet to be stopped, nor will it be stopped in the near future. Alun Harford

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    On 16 Oct 2003 10:28:46 -0700, plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been)
    wrote:
    The respondent suggests - by his justifying murder as "legal" - that
    Not at all. By definition murder is not legal.


  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    183

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
    Whether it has been made legal or not, to murder someone is stillmurder.Which of course means nothing. Legal killing isn't murder.
    There is more than one law. Perhaps the Holocaust killings were legal
    under Nazi law. They were murder under international law.
    You can define 'murder' already by looking at the emotions of it,Bull****. People commit murder calmly, or in great fury. Doesn'tmake a difference. It's still murder as long as you "unlawfully killa human being with premeditated malice".
    To those that subscribe to certain "higher law", capital punishment is
    unlawful, and also killing with "premeditated malice".

    War usually involves killing with premeditated malice, and it is
    always "lawful" in the eyes of the combatants.

    lojbab
    --
    lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
    Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
    (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
    Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    In article <989886.0310150231.7be2dd5c@posting.google.com>,
    plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) said:
    Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today
    Any particular why you crossposted this to rec.arts.tv?

    -- William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>


  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    yes

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message news:<989886.0310161007.29223165@posting.google.co m>...
    Dear Alun, Thanks for your comments. It is the activity of catching the murderers - in this case, to catch those who instigate and perpetuate the murdering, of course. That is standardly a police function, aided by the army if they can not do it alone. And it is hunting down ONLY the murderers, in this case ONLY those who instigate and perpetuate the murders. Not an impossible task - and one can ask and can get international help for that too.
    The LRA is ~2000 strong. The conflict is a war - and wars are fought
    by the military.

    And if you take out "those who instigate and perpetuate the murdering"
    - ie. Joseph Kony - then he'd be replaced by somebody who is probably
    a more competent commander.

    The morale of the Ugandan military (practically zero), and the
    resources avaliable to it (Uganda is not a rich country), mean that
    the LRA can put up one hell of a fight.

    As for international support, I hope the Ugandan president doesn't get
    any. A man who marched into Kampala surrounded by 'bodyguards', few of
    whom were older than 10, does not deserve international support.

    Alun Harford

  17. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    Dear Alun,

    Your viewpoint is incorrect.

    Already, you show your desire to have the murdering perpetuated, by
    now calling it again "a conflict," even "a war."

    But "conflict" and "war" are words that specifically deny a viewpoint
    on both the victims of the murdering, AND - which is much, much worse
    - on those that are acting to stop the murdering.


    You crave attention, and by not creating and not holding a viewpoint,
    you want others to give you their Energy.

    In common terminology, you are then called a 'fake' - meaning that you
    pretend to, but have no desire to take responsibility, and also desire
    for others not to take it (responsibility: Acting correctly by means
    of and born by a correct viewpoint).

    I thank you for the enlightening conversation.

    Solomon Been too



    alunharford@yahoo.com (Alun Harford) wrote in message news:<f890d8e3.0310172335.14c80bff@posting.google. com>...
    plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message news:<989886.0310161007.29223165@posting.google.co m>...
    Dear Alun, Thanks for your comments. It is the activity of catching the murderers - in this case, to catch those who instigate and perpetuate the murdering, of course. That is standardly a police function, aided by the army if they can not do it alone. And it is hunting down ONLY the murderers, in this case ONLY those who instigate and perpetuate the murders. Not an impossible task - and one can ask and can get international help for that too.
    The LRA is ~2000 strong. The conflict is a war - and wars are fought by the military. And if you take out "those who instigate and perpetuate the murdering" - ie. Joseph Kony - then he'd be replaced by somebody who is probably a more competent commander. The morale of the Ugandan military (practically zero), and the resources avaliable to it (Uganda is not a rich country), mean that the LRA can put up one hell of a fight. As for international support, I hope the Ugandan president doesn't get any. A man who marched into Kampala surrounded by 'bodyguards', few of whom were older than 10, does not deserve international support. Alun Harford

  18. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default Reuters Journalism "Definition" Of Murder, Today

    plato_world@yahoo.com (Leonardo Been) wrote in message news:<989886.0310180828.70e302bd@posting.google.co m>...
    Dear Alun, Your viewpoint is incorrect. Already, you show your desire to have the murdering perpetuated, by now calling it again "a conflict," even "a war."
    I have no desire of the continuation of war, nor do I have any desire
    for murder.
    But "conflict" and "war" are words that specifically deny a viewpoint on both the victims of the murdering, AND - which is much, much worse - on those that are acting to stop the murdering.
    I couldn't disagree more. It is a war - the crimes committed by the
    LRA are war crimes.
    That denies nobody a viewpoint - what it denies is the right of
    thousands of people to LIFE.
    You crave attention, and by not creating and not holding a viewpoint, you want others to give you their Energy.
    There's already too many opinions from people who know nothing of the
    situation. I realise that despite studying the situation for 5 years,
    I know very little about what's going on, so I say very little about
    it. There's already plenty of mis-information, mis-interpretation and
    propoganda around, so I see no need to add my own.
    I only write something about the LRA when I'm sufficiently certain
    that I'm right.
    Opinions are worth nothing.
    In common terminology, you are then called a 'fake' - meaning that you pretend to, but have no desire to take responsibility, and also desire for others not to take it (responsibility: Acting correctly by means of and born by a correct viewpoint).
    I make no pretence of knowing what the best action is, but I do know
    that some actions would have appalling concequences. I also have too
    few facts to form a useful viewpoint.

    Alun Harford

Similar Threads

  1. BARF Provisions Taking Effect TODAY
    By Brett Weiss in forum Business Bankruptcy Law
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-2005, 08:15 PM
  2. NEWS: Capital murder case tests law
    By Marley Greiner in forum Adoption Law
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 12:05 AM
  3. Follow the law for Texas juror
    By John F. Carr in forum Small Claim Court
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2003, 06:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •