Activity

Hmmmmm. “regrets the error.” What exactly is the “nature” of the regret? What SPECIFICALLY do they regret? (e.g. do they regret possibly providing individuals with a FALSE [the acknowledgement of the “error” is in itself an admission that objective facts about the world can be discerned] belief from which they might behave, that they have in fact provided a FALSE PREMISS for an argument, particularly heinous in that if you allow someone to use a FALSE PREMISS anything can follow … ) Who SPECIFICALLY made the decision to use the “footage in error?” Will this person or persons be reprimanded? If so, of what will the reprimand consist … SPECIFICALLY (e.g. a letter in their personnel file SPECIFICALLY recording the fact of their inability to make decisions in the newsroom, include a written statement from the person (notarized by an independent third party) or from each person in the group SPECIFICALLY giving an account of the reasoning process each used to come to the decision to use the footage … ) Will anyone ask just one follow up question on just these few words? I’m not holding my breath.
NOTE in case any reader is wondering of my spelling of premiss. Premise and Premiss are two distinct words. “As to the word premiss,—in Latin of the thirteenth Century praemissa,—owing to its being so often used in the plural, it has become widely confounded with a totally different word of legal provenance, the ‘premises,’ that is, the items of an inventory, etc., and hence buildings enumerated in a deed or lease. It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, ‘premise,’ and this spelling…simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic.” – C. S. Peirce

Should ABC News now be required to display a disclaimer – Deceptive Website Warning – “This website may contain deceptive information?”
How many “errors” (for those who have a quantification criterial fetish) before ABC should be required to display such a warning?