Anders Behring Breivik

Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!

If you're already a member please log in:

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7

Anders Behring Breivik; Sane?
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 17 2012, 03:50 PM (3,711 Views)
The Eggman	Apr 28 2012, 11:35 AM Post #76
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Apr 28 2012, 06:31 AM The Eggman Apr 28 2012, 06:04 AM Steve Jones, of the "trick" emails? Yep, very good. Oh god, is that some Daily Telegraph climate science conspiracy bollocks? Actually, don't answer. I'm not fussed. Time to play this card: I just found it amusing that it was Steve Jones, the guy who very foolishly gave loads of ammunition to the anti-climate change lobby. It also appears that you're criticising a different media organisation when you should be giving each and e every individual journalist from the Telegraph a fair crack of the whip. Grouping them together in a derogatory manner which you've just done doesn't seem to fit with your previous statements.



Naebody	Apr 28 2012, 12:29 PM Post #77
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	The Eggman Apr 28 2012, 11:35 AM It also appears that you're criticising a different media organisation when you should be giving each and e every individual journalist from the Telegraph a fair crack of the whip. Grouping them together in a derogatory manner which you've just done doesn't seem to fit with your previous statements. Indeed. That was my Christmas present to you. Or you could see it as an example of a mainstream media organisation deliberately and methodically distorting the reporting of an important issue to fit its editorial agenda, without any accountability whatsoever, which to me helps demonstrate the worth of the BBC in spite of its employees' occasional failings with regards German football. But whatever.



The Eggman	Apr 28 2012, 01:37 PM Post #78
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	The BBC has its own agenda, and deliberately distorts stories to suit its own views (for instance, censoring songs that promoted Palestine as a state; or reporting on various political situations so that the angle is pro-British). Obviously the BBC should have greater accountability, since it's funded by the taxpayer on a ridiculous law that means if you have a tv you need to pay the licence, even if you never watch the BBC. Do you work for the BBC or something? You're treating it like some kind of sacred object. It's a state-funded media organisation that has its own agendas. At least the Telegraph isn't state-funded and doesn't try to convey impartiality. The BBC (I'm classing it as one entity, which it is; just like you classed the Telegraph as an entity) makes many errors, and not just relating to German football, or sport. It also makes programmes that wilfully mislead the audience. There was also the faking of footage regarding child labour (Panorama), and the Andrew Gilligan lies, and the whole phone-in quiz scam stuff. Not to mention inviting David Starkey back onto Question Time a few weeks ago, despite him being a nasty racist (illustrated by his comments after the riots last year). The BBC is untrustworthy for many reasons, all of which are related to the conduct of its employees. An organisation's quality, or lack thereof, is determined by the actions of its individual employees. But whatever. Edited by The Eggman, Apr 28 2012, 01:38 PM.



Naebody	Apr 28 2012, 04:48 PM Post #79
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	... And my own opinion is that the BBC is systemically impartial and accountable, which sets it apart from all commercial media organisations. Individual failings -- which, I reiterate, are inevitable -- shouldn't be mistaken for structural failings. The goal of honesty necessitates hearing opinions some may think shouldn't be heard, yet a goal of impartiality shouldn't mean good and evil have to be given the same weight. Personally, I think the majority of BBC editors do a decent job of navigating these issues, by and large. I've no issue with their reporters calling polarised issues such as Middle East politics as they see it, and I've no problem with occasionally racist historians appearing on Question Time. And, as for fake competitions: wasn't that an ITV scandal that was rebooted by the Daily Mail to include the (widespread and entirely victimless) practice of having the researchers call in to call-in shows? I fail to be scandalised. In terms of accountability, Gilligan's "sexed up dossier" mistake, such as it was, lost him his job and brought about the totemic sacrifice of both the chairman and the director general so I'm struggling to see what point you're making there. I'd also note the intense scrutiny the BBC faces. It's in the direct commercial interest of all other media that (for example) polar bear footage filmed at a zoo is branded "BBC lies" (whereas video game footage passed off as criminal evidence is excused as "rogue researcher at independent production company".) In that context, it's amazing how little mud the rivals find that sticks. But you've already decided to disregard all of that, Eggs. Your views are fixed so this is just wasting valuable time that I could otherwise spend practicing for my appearance on Strictly Come Dancing.



The Eggman	Apr 28 2012, 06:59 PM Post #80
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Apr 28 2012, 04:48 PM ... And my own opinion is that the BBC is systemically impartial and accountable, which sets it apart from all commercial media organisations. Individual failings -- which, I reiterate, are inevitable -- shouldn't be mistaken for structural failings. The goal of honesty necessitates hearing opinions some may think shouldn't be heard, yet a goal of impartiality shouldn't mean good and evil have to be given the same weight. Personally, I think the majority of BBC editors do a decent job of navigating these issues, by and large. I've no issue with their reporters calling polarised issues such as Middle East politics as they see it, and I've no problem with occasionally racist historians appearing on Question Time. And, as for fake competitions: wasn't that an ITV scandal that was rebooted by the Daily Mail to include the (widespread and entirely victimless) practice of having the researchers call in to call-in shows? I fail to be scandalised. In terms of accountability, Gilligan's "sexed up dossier" mistake, such as it was, lost him his job and brought about the totemic sacrifice of both the chairman and the director general so I'm struggling to see what point you're making there. I'd also note the intense scrutiny the BBC faces. It's in the direct commercial interest of all other media that (for example) polar bear footage filmed at a zoo is branded "BBC lies" (whereas video game footage passed off as criminal evidence is excused as "rogue researcher at independent production company".) In that context, it's amazing how little mud the rivals find that sticks. But you've already decided to disregard all of that, Eggs. Your views are fixed so this is just wasting valuable time that I could otherwise spend practicing for my appearance on Strictly Come Dancing. So it's mission statement includes "being impartial". The only problem is that is naive, since the BBC is made up of individuals who aren't impartial, even if they have the intention of being impartial. The news coverage is skewed towards British interests, and what it's viewers want to see. Like the armed forces reporting that is far from partial. In a way, it's this aim (or pretence) of impartiality that makes it so galling when articles and programmes are quite clearly partial. At least with the Telegraph you know what to look out for. Funny how you say the "goal of honesty necessitates hearing opinions some may think shouldn't be heard", yet the BBC censors songs with opinions on the Palestine state. By the way, getting Starkey on Question Time was simply an shameful attempt at adding viewers. It had bugger all to do with the weight of his opinions. The BBC was guilty of falsifying phone-ins. You can check it on Google. My point was Gilligan is just another reiteration that there are always angles the BBC seeks to put, because it is made up of individuals. You can have the admirable impartiality aim all you like, but you're never going to achieve it. The BBC doesn't just report the news; it often makes comment, which of course comes from an opinion which is an individual's opinion. But we've strayed from the point I think (at least my point) in that the BBC's output isn't trustworthy, either through partial reporting (in terms of sport, the BBC's sports editor David Bond is up there with the Motsons of the world in terms of partiality) or through inadequacies in simple fact checking. The BBC does indeed do some great stuff, but it also does some pretty poor stuff. Like most organisations. I'm not going to apologise for having the temerity of saying that I take whatever the BBC (and Sky, etc) with a pinch of salt. You can drop the "your views are fixed" shite as well, making out you're some kind of open-minded, reasonable, smart thinker who's not got an axe to grind.



Naebody	Apr 28 2012, 07:55 PM Post #81
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	Against my better judgement ... 1. I take impartial to mean even-handed, not neutral. What do you take it to mean? 2. What would you suggest should have happened with Gilligan (bearing in mind his report was both accurate and sensationally important, yet its minor failings of protocol forced the resignation of the organisation's two most senior employees)? 3. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind make an issue of this? 4. Likewise this? 5. Do you see any difference between "I take all media with a pinch of salt" and "fck that specific broadcaster, I've already chosen to disregard everything it says"? Because the past dozen answers seem to have conflated those two statements into one. 6. Has anyone who doesn't* have "an axe to grind" ever disagreed with you? In other words, does every single person on the planet have an agenda?



The Eggman	Apr 28 2012, 09:13 PM Post #82
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Apr 28 2012, 07:55 PM Against my better judgement ... 1. I take impartial to mean even-handed, not neutral. What do you take it to mean? 2. What would you suggest should have happened with Gilligan (bearing in mind his report was both accurate and sensationally important, yet its minor failings of protocol forced the resignation of the organisation's two most senior employees)? 3. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind make an issue of this? 4. Likewise this? 5. Do you see any difference between "I take all media with a pinch of salt" and "fck that specific broadcaster, I've already chosen to disregard everything it says"? Because the past dozen answers seem to have conflated those two statements into one. 6. Has anyone who doesn't* have "an axe to grind" ever disagreed with you? In other words, does every single person on the planet have an agenda? 1. Unbiased. The BBC often shows bias towards certain things. 2. Minor failings of protocol? 3. This shows a bias. 4. You don't think fraud is an issue with making? 5. Sigh. You're too sensitive. 6. Your hypersensitive defence of the BBC over a glib comment seems disproportionate which makes me think you have some bias towards it. It was you who started getting all personal, by the way. Pax.



Naebody	Apr 29 2012, 08:49 AM Post #83
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	The definition of madness, it's said, is to repeat the same actions and expect different results. To be clear, I do not expect different results. 1. Ok then. What does "unbiased" mean? Should, for example, a report on pedophilia need to give equal weight to the pro camp? 2. Yup. Gilligan shouldn't have gone live at 6am because he had a habit of talking out of turn. In this case, he said "the Government probably knew" that the 45 minute claim was bullshit. It transpired (according to the Butler report) that the Intelligence Service knew but it was unclear how high that knowledge went before being suppressed. Gilligan's crime was a poorly worded ad-lib he shouldn't have been put in a position to make. The BBC's crime was ... Well, I'm still struggling on that. 3. Ha! No it doesn't. It shows a producer made a mistake. 4. Fraud? Don't be silly. It's entertainment. Everything's fake to some degree. And, providing no-one gets hurt, who cares? Do you really think even one moment of Top Gear or CDWM happened as it's presented? 5 + 6: Ok. So your comment was glib. It was an offhand remark in which you'd put no forethought and invested little sincerity. That'll do I guess. Thanks. (No, I don't and never have worked for the Beeb. I just think it's Britain's most remarkable and distinctive achievement in modern times. A century of calm stewardship and beneficence by the British taxpayer has created a global force for good, which is something we all would be justified to be very proud about. But, yeah, the yellow logo on the sports website is sort-of ugly.)



Skeletor	Apr 29 2012, 03:34 PM Post #84
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Apr 29 2012, 08:49 AM The definition of madness, it's said, is to repeat the same actions and expect different results. To be clear, I do not expect different results. The definition of madness is continually justifying a valid point to Eggman when he's on a trolling mission, and expecting him to compromise or reply on a parallel instead of a tangent. You've already produced a flow-chart as a resignation but you're still going. Wat hapen 2 u?



The Eggman	Apr 29 2012, 08:13 PM Post #85
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Apr 29 2012, 08:49 AM 5 + 6: Ok. So your comment was glib. It was an offhand remark in which you'd put no forethought and invested little sincerity. That'll do I guess. Thanks. (No, I don't and never have worked for the Beeb. I just think it's Britain's most remarkable and distinctive achievement in modern times. A century of calm stewardship and beneficence by the British taxpayer has created a global force for good, which is something we all would be justified to be very proud about. But, yeah, the yellow logo on the sports website is sort-of ugly.) Jesus, this is dull. The point was simply that posting a link to the BBC as if because it's on the BBC that makes it gospel, is bollocks. A fair bit of the BBC's output is inaccurate and partial - for whatever reasons. I couldn't really give a f*ck about its aims or altruistic actions. And the piece that was posted was dreadful, by the way. Your attempts at justification won't change that.



The Eggman	Apr 29 2012, 08:14 PM Post #86
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Apr 29 2012, 03:34 PM Naebody Apr 29 2012, 08:49 AM The definition of madness, it's said, is to repeat the same actions and expect different results. To be clear, I do not expect different results. The definition of madness is continually justifying a valid point to Eggman when he's on a trolling mission, and expecting him to compromise or reply on a parallel instead of a tangent. You've already produced a flow-chart as a resignation but you're still going. Wat hapen 2 u? Sigh. Yet again avoiding the core of the argument and making a useless attempt at an insult. How predictable.



Skeletor	Apr 29 2012, 11:28 PM Post #87
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe Posts: 2,157 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Apr 29 2012, 08:14 PM Skeletor Apr 29 2012, 03:34 PM Naebody Apr 29 2012, 08:49 AM The definition of madness, it's said, is to repeat the same actions and expect different results. To be clear, I do not expect different results. The definition of madness is continually justifying a valid point to Eggman when he's on a trolling mission, and expecting him to compromise or reply on a parallel instead of a tangent. You've already produced a flow-chart as a resignation but you're still going. Wat hapen 2 u? Sigh. Yet again avoiding the core of the argument and making a useless attempt at an insult. How predictable. You have an answer for everything, don't you?



Naebody	Apr 30 2012, 06:20 AM Post #88
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	The Eggman Apr 29 2012, 08:13 PM The point was simply that posting a link to the BBC as if because it's on the BBC that makes it gospel, is bollocks. A fair bit of the BBC's output is inaccurate and partial - for whatever reasons. I couldn't really give a f*ck about its aims or altruistic actions. And the piece that was posted was dreadful, by the way. Your attempts at justification won't change that. Apology accepted.



The Eggman	Apr 30 2012, 07:18 AM Post #89
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Apr 30 2012, 06:20 AM The Eggman Apr 29 2012, 08:13 PM The point was simply that posting a link to the BBC as if because it's on the BBC that makes it gospel, is bollocks. A fair bit of the BBC's output is inaccurate and partial - for whatever reasons. I couldn't really give a f*ck about its aims or altruistic actions. And the piece that was posted was dreadful, by the way. Your attempts at justification won't change that. Apology accepted. Wibble to you too.



The Eggman	Apr 30 2012, 07:19 AM Post #90
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Skeletor Apr 29 2012, 11:28 PM You have an answer for everything, don't you? You clearly don't, that's for sure. Not even for the most simple of questions.


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7