" people like yourself who try to foist a sort of moral code on the rest of us even though you've been around here for a short time"

short time, Den? Like 7 years? And I'm not "foisting" ANY code on anyone, just commenting on the value of tabloid journalism. I certainly have no control over what you post, and would have shrugged and ignored the rest if you hadn't gotten so incensed(...and ask catspaw if I haven't once or twice mentioned to HIM that he was going beyond the pale)..*grin*..but he took it with a grain of salt and a sense of humor.

tsk, Shambles..."Was it just to enable youself to be further offended?
...Of course the answer is..." ...posing rhetorical questions which you then answer to suit your mood and define MY character is a bit extreme for my sin of making a short, low key remark, doncha think?...and BTW.."expecting editing action based..." ?? I don't believe I said ANYTHING suggesting that I was expecting 'editing action'....

I expressed a brief, passing opinion...and thanks to Den & you, I get to enlarge & expand on it! Such a deal!

So...Michael Jackson is on the front page of the Washington Post, on every radio and TV program I turn on, but in MUDCAT, we get the image of him "dropping the soap and hitting the high notes"...

well...you are, of course, correct, Shambles...I didn't 'need' to open the thread- I just had an overwhelming urge (which I usually resist in these matters) to comment on the tendancy for some to post to Mudcat breaking news of little relevance. mea culpa²
.....and now that we have all had this genteel exchange of viewpoints, I do believe I shall take your advice and NOT open the thread further. I can, of course, be reached by PM if anyone just has to continue the discussion.

(Oh...I also didn't vote on the MSNBC online poll yesterday on the burning question, "Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty of molesting children?")