Constant plugging is another myth perpetrated by the ‘GW Lobbyists’! :diablo:
See twice in one day!! 😀
If you’re going to start a lot of that then I’m going to plug the collection in every post…..:):):):):)
Constant plugging is another myth perpetrated by the ‘GW Lobbyists’! :diablo:
See twice in one day!! 😀
If you’re going to start a lot of that then I’m going to plug the collection in every post…..:):):):):)
Serious question ( since I am interested in the answer)
Is there anybody here who can genuinely watch a film for the first time on a channel where it is interrupted, every 10 or 15 minutes?
Moggy
No.
My attention span never survives the first advert break.
In fact I never get through even a short programme with endless adverts. My life is too valuable these days (what remains is now clearly finite) to waste it being shown stuff I neither want, can afford or even find attractive in the purchasing sense.
Banality has won the battle in my case–sadly.
A.
Serious question ( since I am interested in the answer)
Is there anybody here who can genuinely watch a film for the first time on a channel where it is interrupted, every 10 or 15 minutes?
Moggy
No.
My attention span never survives the first advert break.
In fact I never get through even a short programme with endless adverts. My life is too valuable these days (what remains is now clearly finite) to waste it being shown stuff I neither want, can afford or even find attractive in the purchasing sense.
Banality has won the battle in my case–sadly.
A.
Moggy.
Thank God there’s some common sense left in the World.
Moggy.
Thank God there’s some common sense left in the World.
When the Charter comes up for renewal, there will be two factors prominent. One is that it has failed to meet its Charter. The other is that broadcast media has become ‘legacy’ media and has been superceded by the Web. The inevitable conclusion is that BBC will no longer be compulsorily funded, but voluntarily, and set free from government mandate to be Charter-bound. BBC then will become whatever the funders want it to be, thereby injecting a higher level of quality into our overall legacy MSM and new Web media mix.
Steven
I wouldn’t hold me breath for that old son.
When the Charter comes up for renewal, there will be two factors prominent. One is that it has failed to meet its Charter. The other is that broadcast media has become ‘legacy’ media and has been superceded by the Web. The inevitable conclusion is that BBC will no longer be compulsorily funded, but voluntarily, and set free from government mandate to be Charter-bound. BBC then will become whatever the funders want it to be, thereby injecting a higher level of quality into our overall legacy MSM and new Web media mix.
Steven
I wouldn’t hold me breath for that old son.
Moggy.
Yes, I actually forgot that.
I bought the book and read it. There was nothing new that people like Len Deighton hadn’t mentioned thirty years earlier. It certainly to my mind, took a very conventional view of the battle. There was a certain political undertow I think, but like the point I’m trying to illustrate here, we should be able to disect that from the text, and discount it, or count it in depending on our own World view, or political bias. Perhaps I wasn’t the target audience.
I doubt you ever visit ‘The Aerodrome’ but all sorts of odd people turned up there before ‘Flyboys’ was released. Mind you, there are a lot of really odd people there anyway.
Claiming it to be the best thing ever etc.
There were a couple on here (well one in particular) who washed up claiming things for ‘Red Tails’ too.
Can’t say for certain what their motives were, but again you never see them now–well posting that is.
Just a personal opinion anyway.
Moggy.
Yes, I actually forgot that.
I bought the book and read it. There was nothing new that people like Len Deighton hadn’t mentioned thirty years earlier. It certainly to my mind, took a very conventional view of the battle. There was a certain political undertow I think, but like the point I’m trying to illustrate here, we should be able to disect that from the text, and discount it, or count it in depending on our own World view, or political bias. Perhaps I wasn’t the target audience.
I doubt you ever visit ‘The Aerodrome’ but all sorts of odd people turned up there before ‘Flyboys’ was released. Mind you, there are a lot of really odd people there anyway.
Claiming it to be the best thing ever etc.
There were a couple on here (well one in particular) who washed up claiming things for ‘Red Tails’ too.
Can’t say for certain what their motives were, but again you never see them now–well posting that is.
Just a personal opinion anyway.
Charlie.
While I agree that two wrongs etc, don’t make a right, I’m at a point in life where I no longer care enough about battling the perceived wrongs.
There’s no point, and rather like this forum, where people who otherwise have no voice at all, are allowed a small space to make a point (even though they are ignored–even by the other contributors largely), if you try and change something, you will fail.
One only has to read the endless threads of quasi-political postings above to see that.
At this point I’m leaving this thread because as ever it will run to 10 pages of the same people sticking to the same points over and over and no side giving an inch.
I do tend towards thinking that politics of a left/right nature are so deeply embedded in the psyche of many that they rather inadvertently fall back on the arguments of whichever side of the political divide they originated from.
Perhaps more non-aligned thinking is required..??
I’ve often wondered though if anyone here (or elsewhere) is sponsored in some small way by a political organisation to make comment. I know that some years ago a right wing political organisation associated I think with the young Conservatives (at best a highly disreputable bunch of farmers spawn and other undesirables) were paying people to ring into radio phone ins to slew arguments. I believe at the time the Jimmy Young show was demonstrated to have been a victim. Local radio had also been targeted.
To be fair, I suspect the left have tried it too, they’ve just not been caught.
Now before you laugh or say I’m paranoid, I know this happens with films. Twice on aviation forums in recent times contributors have popped up in the lead up to films being released promoting the film in question, then just as quickly gone when the film is out.
Flyboys was an example of this. Sometimes they get quite nasty if someone expresses doubt about the quality of the film too.
Sorry to slew the subject of the thread, but it’s not really going anywhere and it’s my turn to have the floor..
Andy
Charlie.
While I agree that two wrongs etc, don’t make a right, I’m at a point in life where I no longer care enough about battling the perceived wrongs.
There’s no point, and rather like this forum, where people who otherwise have no voice at all, are allowed a small space to make a point (even though they are ignored–even by the other contributors largely), if you try and change something, you will fail.
One only has to read the endless threads of quasi-political postings above to see that.
At this point I’m leaving this thread because as ever it will run to 10 pages of the same people sticking to the same points over and over and no side giving an inch.
I do tend towards thinking that politics of a left/right nature are so deeply embedded in the psyche of many that they rather inadvertently fall back on the arguments of whichever side of the political divide they originated from.
Perhaps more non-aligned thinking is required..??
I’ve often wondered though if anyone here (or elsewhere) is sponsored in some small way by a political organisation to make comment. I know that some years ago a right wing political organisation associated I think with the young Conservatives (at best a highly disreputable bunch of farmers spawn and other undesirables) were paying people to ring into radio phone ins to slew arguments. I believe at the time the Jimmy Young show was demonstrated to have been a victim. Local radio had also been targeted.
To be fair, I suspect the left have tried it too, they’ve just not been caught.
Now before you laugh or say I’m paranoid, I know this happens with films. Twice on aviation forums in recent times contributors have popped up in the lead up to films being released promoting the film in question, then just as quickly gone when the film is out.
Flyboys was an example of this. Sometimes they get quite nasty if someone expresses doubt about the quality of the film too.
Sorry to slew the subject of the thread, but it’s not really going anywhere and it’s my turn to have the floor..
Andy
BBC has a Charter which requires it to be impartial, particularly in regard to news and current affairs. It cannot be said to be impartial on AGW if it deliberately leaves out swathes of relevant information. It is therefore in breach of its Charter, and we cannot dismiss this lightly.
The Charter was put in place so that the public could have some degree of trust in BBC, without checking every fact or needing to seek alternative sources of information to see what BBC might have left out. Funding for BBC is compulsory, and if BBC is in default on its Charter, then we have every right to take away that funding.
There’s also a law in this country which says that you must not drive at more than 70 MPH on a motorway.
of course that’s always followed to the letter by everybody too.
The BBC has never really been impartial.
What you must ask yourself is this. If the bias was in your favour would you still be quoting this at me? Personally I doubt it.
The BBC follows the British establishment view–largely.
I just accept that all news generating media has a bias of one sort or another–it’s the way of things–like people speeding om the motorway.
If you’re sitting there really believing things can be otherwise then I’m sorry to inform you that you are naive.
BBC has a Charter which requires it to be impartial, particularly in regard to news and current affairs. It cannot be said to be impartial on AGW if it deliberately leaves out swathes of relevant information. It is therefore in breach of its Charter, and we cannot dismiss this lightly.
The Charter was put in place so that the public could have some degree of trust in BBC, without checking every fact or needing to seek alternative sources of information to see what BBC might have left out. Funding for BBC is compulsory, and if BBC is in default on its Charter, then we have every right to take away that funding.
There’s also a law in this country which says that you must not drive at more than 70 MPH on a motorway.
of course that’s always followed to the letter by everybody too.
The BBC has never really been impartial.
What you must ask yourself is this. If the bias was in your favour would you still be quoting this at me? Personally I doubt it.
The BBC follows the British establishment view–largely.
I just accept that all news generating media has a bias of one sort or another–it’s the way of things–like people speeding om the motorway.
If you’re sitting there really believing things can be otherwise then I’m sorry to inform you that you are naive.
I agree with your last sentence but nevertheless believe it is incumbent on the BBC as a publicly funded organisation to make doubly sure its output is scruplously balanced and scruplously accurate. We should expect nothing less.
I don’t actually see why we should expect that. It might be desirable but I wouldn’t expect it.
I’d say it was more incumbent upon it to feed ‘the great unwashed’ the Government (or better still the establishment) line.
Something it’s been doing for a long time.