A publication should have control over what advertisements it prints

you keep bringing "may" (dressed as "can" with an implied legally) into discussions of "should".

what reason could be more legitimate than considering the advertised service unethical? are you saying that Baptist Parenting should have to carry ads for abortion clinics?

I knew you wouldn't like it if i did my own research.

re: "national newspapers are and SHOULD be required to carry any advertising unless that have a legitimate reason not to"

wrong. let me quot ethe materials from this clas on advertising law:

"But by the same token, publishers and broadcasters have the right to refuse advertising, with rare exceptions. ( FCC Section 315 political broadcasting and direct competitors advertising under anti-trust laws). "

so there we have it. they may reject advertisements. now i must repeat my question -- what reason could be better than finding the advertised service unethical?

yes, of course this claim is somewhat sweeping; it's less than 2000 pages long. yes, of coruse there will be exceptions. the claim is, as english statements are, about the general case.
except of course english statement that explicitly say that they are not about the general case, which that one didn't.

um, no, i think the guidelines you quote are that the publication must reject advertising that fails any of those points note that the part i quoted says they "have the right to refuse advertising". they have the right to refuse it, not because it violates one of the guidelines underwhich they must refuse it, but because they want to, because htey consider it unethical.

Your analogy is about as flawed as it can be and expect anybody to read it. It has no bearing on the google case, in that google is not a monopoly.

In your example, it is a monopoly -- a governmentally protected one, at that, which is almsot always a bad idea. Being a monopoly comes with special restrictions, as I have acknowledged more than once. If the company winning the bid knew that when they won the bid, then they must accept the restrictions; if they cannot, they should not be in that position.

Does this have any bearing on the general case? not so much.

Nor have you actually addressed the points I made in my last comment. Until you can demonstrate that you are reading what I'm writing, I see no point in discussing this further.

sorry, i keep having the larger conversation, because i get confused which point you're making when you don't actually reply to what i've said.

it's true, this claim didn't mention google or monopolies, but i have mentioned, as you are likely aware, that (a) claims should be taken to mean "in general" and (b) monopolies are special cases, not "general".

let's try an analogy.

anything like? yes. and law has made it so, in some ways. it is also something like a utiiity.

as for replying to my point, yes, it may be that you did. i keep forgetting that you aren't actually speaking english.

@Vynce & Allan: are you enjoying this? Any resolution in sight?

Robin: you're absolutely right. good catch. i let his "if you want to concede" rhetoric bait me into more discussion. I'm such troll food.

Am I missing half of this conversation, or is Vynce insane?

You're not missing anything particularly interesting, although you are missing the comments of a user who deleted his account.

though i am insane, the cause of my insanity this time is external.