Alas, this sort of thing is necessary. Check out our terms and conditions and disclaimers and notifications that we have affiliate links (we do) and all that stuff.
If you wish to share or repost, please so kind as to follow our Terms and Conditions below.
Before you make an ass of yourself with denunciations and declamations, be sure to read the News vs. Endorsements Disclaimer.
Breach Bang Clear Terms and Conditions
T&C: All original material published by Breach-Bang-Clear is the copyrighted property of Breach-Bang-Clear, Inc. If you wish to repost, republish, or otherwise share our content, feel free to reproduce an extract of up to 225 words and one complete, unaltered image, preceded by attribution crediting the source and author’s name, to include a link to the Breach-Bang-Clear home page, with a link back to the full article on our website, BreachBangClear.com. You do not require our permission to do this. Please do not reproduce our content in its entirety without contacting us first. We do allow full syndication on a case by case basis (credited, and posted with a canonical link, as is common practice and in good form) but only when mutually agreed upon beforehand. If you wish to reproduce a complete article, please contact us for permission to publish first.
News vs. Endorsements
Disclaimer: This should go without saying, but we occasionally find it necessary to make something clear. The fact that we write about something, whether because it’s interesting, or compelling, or just plain ridiculous, does not mean we are endorsing it, not even tacitly. Nor does it mean we are reviewing it, or in any way doing more than relaying the information we know (or that has been provided by the manufacturer/organization).
If we think something is groovy, cool, or nifty, we’ll say so. As you’ll notice, stories are categorized. Some can be found in the Be Advised dropdown, others are labeled industry news, which is entirely different than the Reports and Reviews category. Still more are entitled News from JTF Awesome, while some even say WTAF. That acronym should require no definition here.
Here’s an example: in August of 1884, the New York Times published a story called Horrors of Sabine. It was about the Greeley Expedition to the Arctic, where in some stranded sailors ate a few of their buddies. While that’s an interesting story, perhaps even salacious to some, we find it highly unlike any contemporary Times readers considered that story to be an endorsement of cannibalism, or for that matter any other sort of friend-devouring activity.
There are no doubt more recent examples, but we reckon that makes our point pretty well.
In any case, do your best to understand the difference between story types. We’ll do our best to make our opinion (if we have one) abundantly clear.