General BBC-related comment thread! Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Great point from Littlejohn
If the Conservatives can demonstrate where the BBC can be cut back, without cutting services, then why not those other ravenous monsters such as the NHS, local government and Whitehall?
Better still, let’s channel the outrage towards the BBC and Jonathan Ross into a full-scale revolt against the tens of billions wasted by Government departments and Town Halls, the bloated salaries paid to ‘chief executive officers’ and the standing army of meddlesome Guardianistas; and the fortunes wasted on ‘services’ we neither ask for nor want.
For instance, if it can be proven that the BBC could be effectively privatised, why not refuse collection? It would be much cheaper and there’d be none of this ‘alternative weekly collections’ nonsense.
If all those people who have complained to the BBC this week did the same to their local MP, to their Town Hall, to Gordon Brown, we might just be in with a fighting chance of changing something.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081927/LITTLEJOHN-Were-mad-hell-DONT-more.html
I missed out one letter because of a small keyboard and butterfingers. You wrote this:
How do you know there improved models
In other words, you don’t even know the difference between ‘there’ and ‘they’re’.
Asshole.
42 + 42 = 84 – simple really
To a simple-minded buffoon, maybe.
What about the 60?
Nearly Oxfordian | 30.10.08 – 10:34 pm |
And by the way it should have been “promulgate” – but my spellchecker did not work the way it should have. Its this dyslexia I suffer from which sometimes flowers my spelling.
But regardless of your insults – can you explain why it is OK for the BBC to quote papers from a scientist who has made fraudulent claims in the past?
George | 31.10.08 – 12:48 am |
Why don’t you contact Stephen McIntyre and Douglas Keenan – and call them buffons.
it is OK for the BBC to quote papers from a scientist who has made fraudulent claims in the past?
What a stupid statement. So anyone who it is claimed has been dishonest at some point in the past, allegedly, can never ever be quoted from?
Your maths is still lunatic.
No I would not but I would expect more details and maybe another side to the “science”. All we have here is a short piece that the BBC says proves “AGW”
“Jones et al. and Wang et al. consider the same 84 meteorological stations in China.
Regarding 49 of those stations, the DOE/CAS report says, “station histories are not
currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods,
changes in station location or observing times … are not known” (sect. 5). For those
49 stations, then, the above-quoted statements from the two papers are impossible.
Regarding the remaining 35 stations that were analyzed by the two papers, I have
prepared a summary of the relevant information from the DOE/CAS report.”
Click to access EnE07a.pdf
The interlocking BBC, and BBC World Service, and their worldwide expansion at (in this case), UK taxpayers’ expense; it’s all been enthusiastically publicised on BBC News website here for nearly 2 weeks:
“BBC in new S.Asia radio programme”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7679915.stm
This is just what UK taxpayers don’t need.
Any news on when the B-BBC book is coming out?
Now that the mood of resigning has taken a light hold at the BBC, any chance we could get whoever is supposed to be in charge of Justin Webb to resign on grounds of dereliction of duty and allowing him to tarnish the organisation’s reputation for quality and impartiality?
Hugh,
“Right click” on the the # after the poster’s name, copy and paste. Works for posts on the main page and also for comments.
Incidentally, if you ever want to make linkable titles to your posts (as others have suggested would improve navigability and links from elsewhere), that would be the place to do it.
Thanks David, that’s really helpful.
Actually, can you explain the bit about making linkable titles a bit more? what would i need to do?
Hugh,
I don’t know how the Blogspot interface works, but you ought to be able to put text in the link where that # is after your name, just like you do to make linked text in the body of your posts.
< a href="...", etc. (no space before the "a", in actual use) That # is a link to your post, and is the same for all comments. If Blogspot doesn't work like that, you should be able to do the "a href" trick right in your bold text titles. I suppose in that case you'd put the link from the # after your name in there. Shouldn't be that complicated, though. Hope that helps.
Many thanks, that’s great.
Ants are so advanced, that they can communicate with each other by pheromones.
That’s quite clever. But I think what would be even cleverer would be if they knew which end of a boiling kettle they should avoid when they see one.
Pheromones aren’t much cop in those circumstances.