The spirit of my post was to emphasize the importance of “old school journalism” as an ideal of what journalism should be.
Unlike many journalists practicing today who believes in a desk job or "research" on a computer screen, an old school journalist wants to have first hand impressions, gathered from talking with real people and from going on location. The authentic journalist should take his readers along with him on this journey of discovery. The favorite stories of such a journalist should involve "participatory journalism". The journalist who takes your opinion about the character of Rossi is not worth his salt. He needs to find out the facts for himself as a service and a sacred duty to his readers. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Meet Rossi; look him in the eye; gage the man, is he a man we can trust? >> > NO!!! No he is not. If he said it was raining I would go outside to see > for myself. I compiled a whole list of contradictory claims that made, that > are logically or physically mutually exclusive. > > If any of these claims rested on Rossi's personal credibility I would not > believe a word of it. He is even worse than Edison, who was famous for > making wild, unsupported claims . . . Unsupported at the time he made them, > that is. He would often invent the thing months or years later, and reality > would catch up with his imagination. Rossi does that too. In a sense, if > you ignore the direction of time, from present to future, just about > everything he says either is true or will become true. > > Fortunately, Rossi has done some fairly credible tests, witnessed by E&K > and others. And he has allowed independent third party testing, which > clinches the matter, in my opinion. It is a pity he and the testers will > not publish the data. > > - Jed > >
