<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d8439318\x26blogName\x3dThe+Tyranny+Response+Unit+News\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dTAN\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://trunews.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://trunews.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5781649652036690562', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Wednesday, March 30

Letter to the Editor

April 02. **CORRECTION**

It appears that the reader who had some pointed words had intended those words for someone else.

... if I shit on the wrong head, I apologize. My expressions were intended to target the author of the video entitled "Military Wife drops HUGE SEX-BOMB". I'm a blog novice and didn't see any way to contact the author directly and, in my ignorance, selected the first avenue I saw. I may be guilty of assuming that you, as web host, agree with what is posted there. The "TRUnews" in the URL, although clearly an acronym, can legitimately be interpreted as having been chosen for the implication that the hosts believe the content on the site is "true". Any contention to the contrary would strike me as disingenous.

If you really want examples of the "specious . . ." variety from the video, we could get into it. I doubt it's worth spending time on for either of us, tho. I suspect we have irreconcilably opposing views on most of these issues, especially if I have to point out such examples from these particular videos.
Btw, where did you get from my rant that I disagreed with your right to say anything? I specifically made a point about free speech. I support it unconditionally. But I, too, have the right to express the opinion that it is being ill-used when I believe it is.

I could, in fact, tune out because I disagree. But the fact that the author is making money from peddling his conspiracy nonsense to the muddle-headed masses (yes, I know: pretty arrogant opinion) is galling. If my shitting on the purveyors slows them down even for a second from shitting on everyone else then I count my time well-spent. They are following the dictates of their consciences, I hope, in expressing their opinions. I disagree so viscerally with what they say that I am following mine expressing my disgust. Your site exists because you honestly believe people aren't getting accurate information. I objected to the video because I don't believe that it represents accurate information. The free market of ideas is working, but only people don't tune out. You didn't.

If you could tell me how to direct my objections to the intended target, I would be happy to share my opinions of his work with him.


The following letter arrived at Trunews from some one who did not read our subtitle: "Either you are with us or you are with the journalists". In the interests of "responsible reporting" we will publish it for our readers.

Tom, I think you failed to realize that we are bloggers reporting on mainstream and underground news. We at trunews have our right to free speech and will continue to do it.

We proudly report on topics that the mainstream media is afraid to report on. They have paychecks, after all, and we do this for free as a public service. We provide unfiltered content for those people who do think critically about the world around them and have an open mind for what's going on "behind the scenes" of the news facade.

We don't believe everything we read, and neither should you. Our presentations are mostly on mainstream news sources with the occaisional underground topic thrown in. We are different from mainstream news in that we do not assume our readership to be gullible. We despise the journalist's pretence to be the arbiter of truth and try to allow our readers to make their own conclusions.

Trunews is really just a representation of our web-browsing. When we find something we think is interesting and worth passing along, we blog it. The blog is a "stock" of two people's web-browsing habits. Others might have similar patterns but not enough time, so by visiting trunews our readers can get the headlines. This blog works best as an RSS feed or live bookmark in a Mozilla browser.

Trunews aims to provide "first-mover" advantage to its readers in giving information that at times is unsubstantiatied. The "first-mover" advantage in the blogospere can give readers a heads-up concerning what might be happening in the next few hours.

I cannot express how low my opinion is of you for promoting such bullshit. It is incomprehensible to me that you could actually believe the crap on your website. Can you not think critically at all? Are your standards for truth so low that you would believe this shit? Your presentations violate every principle of responsible reporting there is. They are specious, demagogic, ruled by innuendo and hearsay, devoid of fact, and ruled by half-truths. Fortunate for you that free speech is a protected right and that stupidity is not a crime. That the internet gives you the power to broadcast such lunatic ravings to a broad, gullible, audience is a high price to pay for such a wonderful tool, and would be comic if it weren't so harmful. What a bunch of idiots.


Powered for Blogger by Blogger Templates