. I reckon that the BBC’s idea of the dream nation state is Venezuela under the guiding fist of Hugo Chavez. The communist thug Chavez has earned his brownie points by nationalising anything that moves, oppressing private enterprise – and you can read all about it on various approving BBC posts. Just select through the sidebar menu of this latest story expressing Venezuelan outrage that there has been an alleged violation of its airspace by an American military aircraft. Defence Minister Gustavo Rangel said the jet had been tracked by country’s air defences over the Venezuelan-owned island of La Orchila on Saturday. You can just tell how in sympathy the BBC writer of this report was in the admiring tone that Chavez “is a fierce critic of Washington.” It strikes me that the BBC admires those thuggocracies like Venezuela who delight in attacking the USA and this seeps through to the tone of the reports it files.
THE IDEAL BBC APPROVED STATE – VENEZUELA
Bookmark the permalink.
Hugh | 20.05.08 – 11:39 am |
There’s a difference between posting anonymously under a single name and adopting multiple identities, which would seem to me to show a lack both integrity and courage.
Like who and how do you know? Can you back up that assertion and how do you could you do it?
I’d like to know as I have an interest in such things.
simonetta
“By Latin American standards, he isn’t particularly Marxist. He doesn’t nationalize by expropriation, for instance, he takes a strategic stake (28% in one case) by paying market rate for the shares.”
Chavez has significant control of the economy and fully intends to continue stamping his authority over the economy by implementing his version of “21st Century Socialism.”, whatever that means. He is a veiled commie, but a commie nevertheless.
Anyone seen this
Soon there will be sound of jackboots on doors in your area soon. 🙁
Well, not really …
gunnar:
“Hi gharqad tree,
Not entirely sure what you are saying. If Chavez came to post here it would civil to call him thug, etc. Do you think this would enhance debate? You seem to apply that no courtesy should be shown to someone you believe to be a thug. Is this correct?”
Hi Gunnar – my personal position is very clear, and I’ll spell it out for you because evidently you are finding the ethics of the situation almost impossibly complicated.
Every human being is entitled to the presumption of good character unless the facts prove otherwise. Unless they do, this presumption entitles them to be treated courteously with a certain amount of respect even when we disagree with them.
When someone is demonstrated to have – for example – a thuggish character, whether that person be a poster here or a politician there, they are entitled to expect to be called whatever their actions merit. If you or any other person here made or carried out threats of violence against their opponents, or closed down their right of free speech, then you would have no right to expect to be afforded the same levels of courtesy as everyone else, because the presumption of your good character would disappear.
That is why, for example, I address you with courtesy even though we may disagree. That is why, for example, Mr Vance is perhaps entitled to call Mr Chavez a thug: he uses his army to torture protestors etc.
As for this label “enhancing the debate”, gunnar, your question is revealing. The man uses his army to torture or murder domestic political opponents – precisely what debate is it that you want to have about that?
We can debate whether that’s called “murder” or “reform”. I opt for “murder”. How about you?
Like who and how do you know? Can you back up that assertion and how do you could you do it?
I’d like to know as I have an interest in such things.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 20.05.08 – 1:10 pm
Site owners are able to see the unique IP address from which each poster accesses the site. If posters using different screen names are all using the same IP address it would seem to be likely that it is indeed one person using multiple names.
Quite apart from that people have their own writing style, “Hillhunt” for example is easily recognizable.
‘Site owners are able to see the unique IP address from which each poster accesses the site’
Do you have anything to back that up? IP is not a form of identification of any single poster. An IP for sole use is only affordable to big business’ not family homes. If a poster is accessing the site via a home computer, the network will assign an IP for use in an area, that is why it is a risky business to ban by IP. Much better to do it by cookies.
Home IP’s are not static either, which is why most sites use moderation and not banning. Banning will not produce good manners either. Only good moderation will do that.
How do you have good moderation on a site where those calling for it, and supposedly administering it, are doing exactly that? If Mr Vance wants moderation, as we all do, then he too must abide by his own rules.
As for sock puppetting. Until the site puts up a rule that only one name/alias can be used – then frankly no rules are broken, and it is none of your business.
If the site wants real names used, I would go for that, as long as there is moderation to stop abuse.
Courtesy should be afforded to all, even people who are not here to defend themselves one way or the other. Most other sites manage it, as did this one before the advent of Mr. Vance.
“then frankly no rules are broken.”
I didn’t suggest you were breaking any rules, but if your arguments are strong enough you shouldn’t have to invent other characters to support them. It is also difficult to take lectures about courtesy and respect for others from a poster who is unwilling to take the responsibility for their comments that comes from sticking to a single identity.
‘Only Me’ is wrong on several counts – fixed IP addresses are surprisingly common and identifying posters by their assigned, dynamic IP addresses, while it isn’t perfect, works quite well – as poor old Biodegradable knows only too well.
‘Cookies’, on the other hand do not. Many people set their browser to delete stored cookies every time it’s closed (I do this myself, in fact, for reasons of privacy).
Moving from fact to opinion, I also entirely disagree about Mr Vance’s tenure. Indeed, I have returned since he arrived, having vowed never to comment here while the previous management remained in place.
The fact that Mr Vance had the patience and courtesy to post asking users to moderate their language was, to me, a very welcome change for the better and says a lot about our host.
Cheers to all who got the message and jeers to all who didn’t! 😉
‘fixed IP addresses are surprisingly common and identifying posters by their assigned, dynamic IP addresses, while it isn’t perfect, works quite well’
I suggest any poster in doubt contact their IP server. Banning by IP can and does exclude many innocent people who may live near the offender. Ask your IP server. While they can and do wipe out the offender, they eliminate others as well. And there are on line ways of getting round an IP ban for an offender, while the innocent are still banished.
This is a fact that any phone call to your IP server will verify.
I agree with you it isn’t perfect, and it isn’t perfect for the reason I stated, which doesn’t make me wrong, though I could have worded it to be more clear.
As to the deletion of cookies.
‘(I do this myself, in fact, for reasons of privacy).’
Most don’t.
Moving to your opinion. That is fine that you are back, but due to Mr Vance’s tenure we have lost most if not all contact with BBC employees, and this leaves us here gossiping among ourselves, as someone above has pointed out.
They fled almost instantaneously as Mr. Vance arrived, due to the tenor of
his posts. That was an unfortunate loss.
only me:
‘Site owners are able to see the unique IP address from which each poster accesses the site’
Do you have anything to back that up?
Ask David, or anybody else who uses Haloscan comments. Go to the Haloscan site and see if they mention it there.
It is a fact, I don’t need to “back it up”. Do you have proof I’m lying?
IP is not a form of identification of any single poster. An IP for sole use is only affordable to big business’ not family homes.
I have a domestic ADSL connection and have a static IP address. In any case home users on dynamic IP adresses only have their address changed maybe every 24 hours or if they log off then on again.
If the same address is being used to post under more than one screen name in a period of, say two hours, I’d say its a fair bet it’s the same person using the same computer.
If a poster is accessing the site via a home computer, the network will assign an IP for use in an area, that is why it is a risky business to ban by IP.
Indeed it can be. Many years ago when I first started commenting here I found myself banned because somebody else in the same IP block was banned for posting offensive remarks.
The site owners were able to unban me and allow my unique static IP through. I am on a home computer using a domestic, not business account.
More recently Andrew (a site owner) deliberately banned me for reasons known only to himself, David Vance has kindly unbanned my static IP address again.
Home IP’s are not static either
mine is
Banning will not produce good manners either.
No, but it does eradicate the persistent abusers.
As for sock puppetting. Until the site puts up a rule that only one name/alias can be used – then frankly no rules are broken, and it is none of your business.
There are rules that apply to the internet, and the real world, without the necessity of having to spell them out. If I post a comment using your name I am breaking one of those rules. If I create a sock puppet and use it to agree with everything “Biodegradable” writes or disagree with everything you write I am also breaking one of those rules.
Courtesy should be afforded to all, even people who are not here to defend themselves one way or the other.
Señor Hugo Chavez is free to come here and defend himself.
You and I affording each other courtesy while directly addressing each other’s comments is not the same as calling a public figure such as Chavez by his proper name.
‘In any case home users on dynamic IP adresses only have their address changed maybe every 24 hours or if they log off then on again’
I rest my case.
on the banning of IP’s and its effectiveness,
Home IP’s are not static either
mine is
As I said.
‘ If a poster is accessing the site via a home computer, the network will assign an IP for use in an area, that is why it is a risky business to ban by IP.
Indeed it can be. Many years ago when I first started commenting here I found myself banned because somebody else in the same IP block was banned for posting offensive remarks.’
As I said.
only me:
‘Site owners are able to see the unique IP address from which each poster accesses the site’
Do you have anything to back that up?
Yes:
http://www.haloscan.com/
Ban offensive commenters by single IP or an IP range
‘Home IP’s are not static either
mine is
As I said.’
Should say that is not the case for everyone.
Biodegradable:
YOur own comments and experience points out and backs up what I have said.
only you.
Not at all. You said this:
An IP for sole use is only affordable to big business’ not family homes. If a poster is accessing the site via a home computer, the network will assign an IP for use in an area… Home IP’s are not static either…
My own situation shows that you are wrong on all those counts.
But this discussion has nothing to do with BBC bias.
I’m afraid I disagree with ‘Only Me’ still further. Personally, I do not regret the loss of ‘John Reith’s’ endless issue-sniping and pro-Palestinian sophistry.
Nick Reynolds was, briefly, interesting but vanished long ago, while David Gregory’s myopia on the AGW issue became rather taxing after a while.
‘Sarah-Jane’ seems a more reasonable sort – but she is still here, isn’t she?
Hi David
You write:
“Cheers to all who got the message and jeers to all who didn’t!”
Clever play on phonetics and words. Not sure what “jeers” means in your dictionary, you know the “dictionary of moral clarity”, the one in your head.
The one I am using states that “to jeer” means:
“to laugh or shout insults at someone to show you have no respect for them”
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42534&dict=CALD
To write this under a blog asking for civil behaviour is somewhat ironic, to put it mildly.
An IP for sole use is only affordable to big business’ not family homes.
When I contracted my ADSL service 5 years ago all users were assigned fixed IPs, then the ISP realised it wouldn’t have enough to go around so began charging for static IPs as an extra.
This isn’t my ISP but it gives you an idea what it costs in Spain. €140 or £111 per year seems quite affordable if one really wants it.
See “Dirección IP Fija para ADSL”
http://www.arrakis.com/btgo_base/Ampliaciones
Simonetta- it’s an axiom of fiance that markets discount future expectations. Hence, when Chavez announces plans to nationalise certain companies, markets respond by re-pricing the shares of the companies in question to reflect this news. Put in layperson’s terms,share prices plunge when nationalisation looms, so although Chavez may pay “market rate,” that market rate is hardly fair market value, or fair compensation to the owners of the company that Chavez
is stealing.
E.g.: http://theinsightful.blogspot.com/2007/01/two-speculative-gold-plays.html
I would say a more appropriate acid test of his administration is not whether his antipathy towards America extends into a McCain or Obama administration, it’s whether he can tolerate a free press and freedom of speech in his own country. The record suggests not, ergo one has reason to believe that he is a tyrant and thug.
NB: It does not logically follow that one who holds such an opinion is themselevs a tyrant or a thug. I’m not sure where you got that idea.
‘This isn’t my ISP but it gives you an idea what it costs in Spain. €140 or £111 per year seems quite affordable if one really wants it.’
If one really wants it, therefore you agree with me that fixed IP’s for home computers need to be purchased, and IMV they are only used by big business, but that aside, they have to be bought.
Are we agreed on that?
‘Indeed it can be. Many years ago when I first started commenting here I found myself banned because somebody else in the same IP block was banned for posting offensive
remarks.’
And do you agree with me that as in your situation innocent as well as guilty ccan and sometimes do suffer in a banning by IP situation??
‘Home IP’s are not static either
mine is’
But do you agree with me that not all are static?
ARe we agreed on those things?
‘But this discussion has nothing to do with BBC bias.’
No it arose in the tread because we are speaking of civility, and whats done with incivility, but my main point is, you cannot call for civility and moderate incivility unless you give it – even to public figures.
‘But this discussion has nothing to do with BBC bias.’
No it arose in the tread because we are speaking of civility, and whats done with incivility
It arose because you disagreed to my response http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1071538757917063479/#399294
to this comment: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1071538757917063479/#399288
disagreed with my response
Bio, Only Me…
It WAS interesting…for a while, how about we drop this now it’s looking like static….
Much more interesting to me is how Gunnar has blanked gharqad tree | 20.05.08 – 1:18 pm
instead nit picking David again, He/she is watching the posts but not replying when the going gets intellectual.
Troll comes to mind….
I’m still all in favour of regisration.
100%.
Said so before.
Then its goodbye trolls.
Don’t know about banning ISPs – I and one other person on a regularish basis use this blog from the same computer, I trust the other person but I wouldn’t want to be banned for what they post, that couldn’t happen with regisration.
No objection to pseudonyms, but register the pseudonym, but keep your anonymity as a poster if you want it.
I am surprised at the likes of “Diana” and “Only Me” posting like they have been here for a very long time, years, when in fact they have only posted in very recent times just this month, or maybe its just this week.
I’m with David.
Register out the trolls!
(Having said that if you could reply to my email request for regisration to ATW David…)
BaggieJonathan | 20.05.08 – 3:22 pm |
I agree with a lot you say, but registration is a big put off. I must have going on a hundred registrations on web sites, some work some personal, (i’m guessing other will have many more) the act of creating yet another username, password etc and keeping a rocord of that just to access and read the site, well I know I click off a lot of sites which demand I first set up another entity.
I am surprised at the likes of “Diana” and “Only Me” posting like they have been here for a very long time, years, when in fact they have only posted in very recent times just this month, or maybe its just this week.
If the site owners don’t want new comers, or people using different alts they should say so.
BaggieJonathan:
I’m still all in favour of regisration.
100%.
Said so before.
Then its goodbye trolls.
Registering here via e mail, is as open to trolling as anywhere else. Infact I remember one blog ran by a well known figure where I live, he brought in registration via e mail to block out said trolls due to the risks with IP banning. The risks with IP banning were more real for him as he was blogging to a certain group of people in our area.
Turns out opening a new and different e mail can be done more easily than getting around an IP ban.
The one I am using states that “to jeer” means:
“to laugh or shout insults at someone to show you have no respect for them”
Same dictionary I would use. Moderators who are selective in their civility cannot call for it from others.
“Would David stop calling Chavez a thug if the later started posting here. Afterall, rules are rules.”
If you haven’t realised that Gunnar is extracting the urine by by now…
‘Only Me’,
No objection at all to a newcomer.
That doesn’t cover you though does it?
Bringing that in is disingenuous.
A newcomer that is genuinely aware of a long history of the blog is not a newcomer by definition, don’t you agree.
So in your case – lets assume you are being truthful.
Then from your own comments about David Vance’s tenure and your reaction to the blog before he was in position and since, which does not add up with your appearance just this week.
We have to assume you are a very long standing poster who has now changed his name only very recently, for reasons undisclosed, and definitely not a newcomer.
only me: If the site owners don’t want new comers, or people using different alts they should say so.
I’m sure the site owners do want new comers. I don’t know of a site that does want sock puppets. It’s an easy distinction.
And the thug argument is bizarre, or are you suggesting that if they were alive it would be wrong to call Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot a thug?
Would you disagree with calling Mugabe a thug, or bin Laden?
Perhaps you want to change the english language and 1984 style delete words.
Thats doubleplusbad.
Where does it all end?
Sounds like you are arguing for the sake of it, I can’t see where you are going with it.
field.size
only me
OK.
Interesting points about the regisration.
I have to go and think about it.
Hmmm… maybe highly draconian moderation is needed to return again to the blog, regrettable, but if its needful to stop trolling and abuse and regisration won’t work then so be it.
field.size: re-his blanking the Tree, Gunnar exhibited exactly the same character when his patronising questioning of the use of the word ‘terrorist’ was firmly answered some time back
Hi gharqad tree,
Many thanks for your response.
Here are my thoughts to your points:
“Hi Gunnar – my personal position is very clear, and I’ll spell it out for you because evidently you are finding the ethics of the situation almost impossibly complicated.”
Thank you
“Every human being is entitled to the presumption of good character unless the facts prove otherwise. Unless they do, this presumption entitles them to be treated courteously with a certain amount of respect even when we disagree with them.”
Agreed
“When someone is demonstrated to have – for example – a thuggish character, whether that person be a poster here or a politician there, they are entitled to expect to be called whatever their actions merit. If you or any other person here made or carried out threats of violence against their opponents, or closed down their right of free speech, then you would have no right to expect to be afforded the same levels of courtesy as everyone else, because the presumption of your good character would disappear.”
Agreed in principle. So when Mr Vance asks posters to crawl under a stone am I free to call him names? This appears to me what you are saying.
What I am trying to say, that it would be not be helpful to call Mr Vance name if I want to discuss with him. He would simply disregard me.
“That is why, for example, I address you with courtesy even though we may disagree. That is why, for example, Mr Vance is perhaps entitled to call Mr Chavez a thug: he uses his army to torture protestors etc. ”
Mr Bush uses his army to torture people. However, I refrain from calling him “thug” as this would not help the debate with anyone on this board.
“As for this label “enhancing the debate”, gunnar, your question is revealing. The man uses his army to torture or murder domestic political opponents – precisely what debate is it that you want to have about that?”
Frankly, the thread started with me noticing that Mr Vance has broken his house rules in the blog above. We have now discussed this for a while and we have not come to a conclusion. Even on the thread asking to refrain from calling fellow posters names some people did not manage to keep to this.
Bob | 20.05.08 – 4:26 pm
Yes, it’s a pity we have to put up with that patronising format only to be left hanging when posters get down to the meat :o(
Gunnar: “So when Mr Vance asks posters to crawl under a stone am I free to call him names? This appears to me what you are saying.”
Why call him names? Why not tell him to respect the house rules? Were you to do that I would find it absolutely appropriate. Calling him names is not the adult response.
On the other hand, if Mr Vance calls a Mr Chavez a Bad Word, he is doing something else. I believe Mr Chavez to be a thug, yet were I forced to sit at the dinner table with Mr Chavez I like to think I would be perfectly capable of insinuating that he is a nasty little anti-Semite who stifles the freedoms of his own people – without resorting to actual insult. If someone IS a thug, then insults are not required – facts should suffice.
gunnar, I’ve come out with what I thought were legitimate comments on this site before, and found myself shocked to be labelled a commie and a whinging leftie. Neither of which are “helpful” in describing my rabidly right-wing views on most things in life. I’ve argued for moderation in tone.
If you feel that Mr Vance has been rude to you, demand that he apologise. It seems that you no longer wish for him to desist from labelling Mr Chavez a thug, and have no answer to what we might “helpfully” call his elimination and torture of his opponents except to imply that Bush is not perfect either and yet you choose not to call him a thug.
The answer to that is simple: we have some robust (and yes, occasionally silly) debates here, during which you and I, and people like us, should behave with courtesy and reasonable respect for each other even when we disagree, and during those debates you should feel free to call Bush a thug, and I should feel free to call Chavez and almost all of his international allies thugs. Neither of should cry about it, we should just present evidence that backs up our cases.
It’s that simple. Isn’t it?
Gunnar, could you be the Gunnar that I once met as an English language student in Herne Bay? Little things amused him, like “putting a yellyfish in a chap’s bed” (“a yoke”, as he helpfully explained).
“………due to Mr Vance’s tenure we have lost most if not all contact with BBC employees, and this leaves us here gossiping among ourselves, as someone above has pointed out.”
Is ‘someone above’ me, at all?
“They fled almost instantaneously as Mr. Vance arrived, due to the tenor of
his posts. That was an unfortunate loss.”
only me | Homepage | 20.05.08 – 2:20 pm |
A while ago Mr Vance and many other posters seemed to agree that it was better without them so I shut up and ignored his reposte.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3798895451755526362/#388367
At least one other poster went off in a huff. I deferred to the majority who had come up with zillions of ringing endorsements for his style and his ‘reinvigoration’ of the site.
Personally, I do not regret the loss of ‘John Reith’s’ endless issue-sniping and pro-Palestinian sophistry.GCooper | 20.05.08 – 2:39 pm
No, he was a real pain. But more for ignoring substantive arguments and cherry picking from long-lost BBC archives to ‘prove’ a point, than for his unmistakable unshakable prejudice.
I asked, way back then: “If BBC employees no longer come here to engage, this whole thing becomes a bit pointless. If you are not concerned with how the BBC feels then why are we here?”
No-one else felt the same. Particularly Baggie J.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3798895451755526362/#388318
I still want to know the point of chatting away, free from Beeboids? To what avail ?
P.S. If anyone disagrees with the above, please jump down my throat in a polite and orderly fashion.
If anyone disagrees with the above, please jump down my throat in a polite and orderly fashion.
Sue | 20.05.08 – 5:36 pm | #
Well, FWIW, I do enjoy intelligent debate in a civilised manner, from any quarter, as you have well demonstrated in the past.
Can’t be fun trying to engage sometimes, so the attempt by any BBC employee to do so is appreciated. At least be me.
And I miss a few others who now sadly seem to have given up.
Sue, ignoring the delicious innuendo of your last request, I agree.
Reith was a tedious and sophistic voice who contributed nothing. Other BBC contributors were more thoughtful, and there used to be some valuable give and take between us.
I would hate for this site to become a cage where the right-of-centre sit grooming each other and discussing how filthy all the commies are.
There is a place for that, I just thought that this site had the potential to be more productive than that.
gunnar:
Hi David
Glad to read that. Sadly, it did not last long.
Your post above has phrases like: “The communist thug Chavez” and “thuggocracies like Venezuela”.
Do you seriously consider this “civil” language.
You are KIDDING, right?
That’s supposed to be a serious point by you?
Sheesh. Get a life-coach.
gunnar…David can follow or break his own rules if he wants to…it’s his site…you and I don’t have to visit if we don’t wish too.I’m happy with the way things are run here but you obviously are not…..feel free to leave but if you do stay then you should understand that we don’t have ownership rights here…we don’t set the rules,if you feel strongly about this then start your own blog like the rest of us.
Hi gharqad tree,
Many thanks for your response. My answers below.
Gunnar: “So when Mr Vance asks posters to crawl under a stone am I free to call him names? This appears to me what you are saying.”
“Why call him names? Why not tell him to respect the house rules? Were you to do that I would find it absolutely appropriate. Calling him names is not the adult response.”
Sensible point. As I pointed out, I do not want to call people names and have, I hope, refrained from this in the past. It was simply referring to your comment that if someone posted a thugish comment, one should be labelled a thug.
“On the other hand, if Mr Vance calls a Mr Chavez a Bad Word, he is doing something else. I believe Mr Chavez to be a thug, yet were I forced to sit at the dinner table with Mr Chavez I like to think I would be perfectly capable of insinuating that he is a nasty little anti-Semite who stifles the freedoms of his own people – without resorting to actual insult. If someone IS a thug, then insults are not required – facts should suffice.”
This is exactly the point I tried to make, but you seem to get the point across a lot better. However, we have now come full circle. This was what I reminded Mr Vance of above.
You “seem” to agree with me that there is no point in insulting people if you want to debate with them. Further, it would make it a lot easier to respect a fellow poster’s opinion if the comments were not including insulting words. Or not?
“gunnar, I’ve come out with what I thought were legitimate comments on this site before, and found myself shocked to be labelled a commie and a whinging leftie. Neither of which are “helpful” in describing my rabidly right-wing views on most things in life. I’ve argued for moderation in tone.”
We are in agreement on the position that insulting other people is not helpful in a discussion.
“If you feel that Mr Vance has been rude to you, demand that he apologise.”
I can live with Mr Vance insulting me. What I find more difficult to stomach is him not coming forward with sources and clarifying his point when asked.
“It seems that you no longer wish for him to desist from labelling Mr Chavez a thug, and have no answer to what we might “helpfully” call his elimination and torture of his opponents except to imply that Bush is not perfect either and yet you choose not to call him a thug.”
I just do not see the point of labelling Chavez or Bush at all. We can discuss the policies of those two men and quite likely the quality of the sources we are using. In my case, I have only second hand information of either person since I have not met them in private. You and me will weight the information we receive depending on how much we trust the source and how well the information aligns itself with our a priori believes (I use “you” in a general fashion). I think we should be talking more about this process.
“The answer to that is simple: we have some robust (and yes, occasionally silly) debates here, during which you and I, and people like us, should behave with courtesy and reasonable respect for each other even when we disagree, and during those debates you should feel free to call Bush a thug, and I should feel free to call Chavez and almost all of his international allies thugs. Neither of should cry about it, we should just present evidence that backs up our cases.”
Disagree on the last point. It simply muddies the waters and gets in the way of an argument. However, if the majority wants to argue using insulting language and everyone is agreed on this; obviously the majority rules and dominates the debate as can be observed above.
While I understand your points, Sue, I’m not convinced we actually need interaction with members of the BBC’s staff to accomplish our goals.
If, as seems to be the case, we are mostly agreed that the BBC exhibits serious bias in several areas, then our aim, I assume, must be to get that bias to stop.
It is possible, though I suspect unlikely, that discussion with BBC staff might persuade them to change their ways. I say it’s unlikely because one common characteristic of BBC staff appears to be an almost superhuman ability to deny error – ask any listener to R4’s Feedback.
More likely to bring about change, I would suggest, is if the BBC became aware that there was a sufficiently large number of people concerned about the way it behaves.
That might induce change through self-examination, or, more likely, fear of a political backlash at some stage – but it would not be dialogue that caused it – it would be the pressure of opinion and of numbers.
I’m afraid I believe, if one were locked in a room with, say, John Simpson, for a 100 years, neither would be able to persuade the other of the wrong-headedness of his position.
As the saying goes: the time for talking is over.
Despite gunnar’s too sensitive to live protestations I shall continue to go out on limb and make controversial, and some might think, downright nasty comments about Adolf Hitler.
Hitler only has one bal, the other is in the Albert Halll. Hitler was a Nazi thug. Hitler — well you get the idea..
gharqad tree | 20.05.08 – 5:53 pm
I would hate for this site to become a cage where the right-of-centre sit grooming each other and discussing how filthy all the commies are.
Sadly it seems to have become just that (very well put, by the way) much of the time already.
Speaking as one who doesn’t have much time to linger on this blog, I get really frustrated by having to wade through dozens of screeching comments that say nothing substantive about BBC bias but just rain down curses on left wingers, Palestinians, ‘moozlums’ etc etc. They just get in the way and leave too little precious time for reading the witty, thoughtful or insightful posts by the likes of yourself, David Preiser, simon, Hugh, Sue, deegee, Cockney, MattLondon, Biodegradable (sorry I can’t name you all….but you know who you are).
It seems mean-spirited to criticize David Vance • he does put in a lot of time and work and we sure don’t pay him for his efforts.
But during the London mayor election and the early days of the Brown meltdown, it seemed to me it was left to commenters like Oscar to make the forensic case about bias, while the main posts were just examples of DV riding a succession of hobby-horses. Often these would link BBC stories that seemed perfectly un-biased, rather undercutting the whole point. That’s still a problem IMHO. On the other hand, the frequency of DV’s posts does relieve the congestion on the general thread and provide a kind of focus. So my respectful plea to DV would be • please hold your fire until you spot a genuine case of slanted reporting.
Sue,
Sorry but I still vehemently disagree with you and my views haven’t changed.
Seems like you want the tail to wag the dog.
If you think the whole point is to engage the BBC employees you can, just visit the BBC site.
The day we amend the site to suit the BBC employees I’m out of here, it would become a mockery, you might as well call it ‘points of view 2’.
Or perhaps you want to set up your own site ‘the BBC is it a bit wrong now and then.co.uk’ and get the BBC employees to engage with you there, but careful if you say anything they don’t like orders will go out from the BBC and they will boycott you till you are nicer to them.
Sue- they (beeboids) still come. There is Sarah-Jane and also Nick Reynolds who have both commented in recent days. That’s not counting the visitors who lurk and get the vibes and see whose points hit home, which is something commenters here need to take account of- well made comments hit home better than mouthings off.
Gunnar, I’d prefer that you stayed, and continued to contribute, remaining as polite as you have throughout this debate (which must be difficult at times) and offering arguments and the evidence that supports them.
No-one here should have a problem with that. And if they do – if they merely dismiss or call names, then you can point out that they have no counter argument, and that their lapse into insult is a type of concession.
I’m off for my dinner 🙂
Regarding when to post, I respectfully disagree with Paul S. There are few smoking guns around, but plenty of smoke. It’s an overall approach and although there are some great gotcha moments to be had, they are few and far between- the BBC are, after all, establishment-based professionals with a lot of experience and expertise. David Vance is also an experienced person, and knows how politicised the news is. His frequent posts are thoroughly valid. What people don’t understand is how difficult it can be to lead the way on a subject when the BBC machine, and the MSM surrounding them, is against it.