On 4/5/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any conceptual difference between us picking it up from a paper and republishing it, to the Village Voice picking it up from a paper and republishing it... does it somehow become more legitimate three or four transactions down the chain?
I'm curious about this too for future reference. Whats a good typical benchmark for when the absurd or salacious does in fact become notable for inclusion? A good rule of thumb, lets say.
For what its worth, also the Village Voice is a good resource. They're cited in quite a few articles...