Isn't it more useful and doesn't it do more good to post stories with real news?
If I know a story is false, and post it anyway, especially with no disclaimers, IMO it makes me look stupid and the site look stupid, especially when the misleading and inflammatory headline persists.
Yes, the headline is Rush's fault, and I know we aren't supposed to change headlines - although the part in parentheses was added by the poster. A disclaimer that the article and/or headline were false or misleading could have just as easily been added, don't you think?
It could have been added by someone who knew Limbaugh's story was false. I, for my part, am still not convinced that the story is false. I say we wait and see.
Don't the postings by the later posters claiming the story is false serve the same purpose an original disclaimer would have done?
And, if this story by Limbaugh is indeed false, then it was likely to deceive people. The discussion here makes that less likely at least for FReepers.
I detect here an atmosphere that more and more wants to shut down discussion and close our eyes to unpleasant facts. (Even if Limbaugh's article is false, it remains a fact that he published it. In fact, I believe it remains up on his site.)