Well, to start with, I think the problem begins when you place "reasoning" and WorldNetDaily in the same sentence... I see them as a partisan fringe "media" which don't really conform to any kind of journalistic standard.Because I do not understand the reasoning behind this at all....
I'm surprised you feel that way since the majority of the articles on WND are from other sources such as the LA Times, NY TImes, WSJ, etc... Very few articles are actually written by WND.I see them as a partisan fringe "media" which don't really conform to any kind of journalistic standard.
Well, when some people dress in black and enter your home with guns drawn, it would be a good guess that they are part of the SWAT team. I think most people would make the same mistake in identifing strangers with guns in their home.As to the substance of the story itself, I think all the hyperbole around "SWAT teams" does a disservice to a potentially legitimate issue.
Looking at the WND homepage, about 60% of the headlines are attributed as WND articles, with the remainder coming from a variety of media sources. The ones authored by WND tend to be the ones lacking in journalistic standard, the most partisan, and (surprisingly enough) the ones quoted most frequently in GC....I'm surprised you feel that way since the majority of the articles on WND are from other sources such as the LA Times, NY TImes, WSJ, etc... Very few articles are actually written by WND.
Well, it matters in determining whether the information is correct. If the situation is as you describe, I think the Stowers have a decent argument. I have no faith that this is the actual situation if that info is derived from WND or libertarian blogs with an ax to grind. I think most of the reputable local media would take more of a "wait and see" approach before concluding that the Stowers were simply doing favours for their neighbours. I guess it will come out in the legal process.Also, why does it matter where the article came from if the information is correct? As I understand the situation from what I have read, the Stowers didn't "benefit" from placing bulk orders for other people, they just used their account to place the orders. If my neighbor were to order bulk food and I asked them to order me some stuff and all I paid was cost, would my neighbor need a license? IDTS.
Well, the Chronicle Telegraph story suggests that it was one person dressed in a black uniform, accompanied by county health officials (who probably wear suits). It has not been established that guns were out of the holsters, and the Sheriff has denied that guns were pointed at heads.Well, when some people dress in black and enter your home with guns drawn, it would be a good guess that they are part of the SWAT team. I think most people would make the same mistake in identifing strangers with guns in their home.
Ok..do I understand ?? They were giving the co-op foods to people after the people had placed their orders through them for a better wholesale price between them..right ?? Or did she actually have a little room called the Manna Store (?) and people came into it to buy things, eggs, etc. ?? If it is the store idea I think they are in big trouble. QUOTE]
Sounds like a True Address and Physical Building to me, you can even order over the net, that means she has a warehouse and is shipping out of same.
http://www.mannastorehouse.com/index.html1. â Manna Storehouse
a. Manna Storehouse is a private business and does not sell to the public. Only members in âgood standingâ are eligible to purchase products.
b. Manna Storehouse buys products in bulk and sells products to members at discounted prices. No other services are expressed or implied with this membership.
And as I remember the first artical written had a Picture taken 4 years ago of one of their sheep on it~! Not a very up to date reporting I would say.