We are approaching the season of goodwill to all men. This has a resonance on Biased BBC and here is why. Our site traffic is fantastic and the post quota is rising. But so is some of the ad hominem abuse and it stops now. I want you all to engage and debate but to do without lowering yourself to vicious comments and attacks. I know that this site is regularly visited and read by BBC staff. I want them to feel they can come here and put their point of view WITHOUT being savaged, even IF we entirely disagree with what it is said. We need to have a civilised tone and I know most of you are polite, witty and to the point under discussion. So, do the site and the cause a favour and stick to the topic and no abuse please. If my request is not respected, I will deal with it in a more draconian fashion. The credibility of the site is as much measured in the contents as the posts, so please respect my wish and let’s debate in a civil way.
THE SEASON OF GOODWILL TO ALL MEN…..
Bookmark the permalink.
well said!
to be totally fair to him,i think the only one of the current batch of “outside” contributors who does at least attempt a bit of debate is Jim Dandy
the others just turn up to generally troll and provoke intemperate response
Hear, hear. It’s excruciating to see the abuse JD gets subject to for expressing a contrary view.
Far leftist bigots like Scez often deserves short shrift without being gratuitous, but the guff that comes JD’s way, sheesh.
That’s true these days but in the past we’ve had some very interesting and challenging debates with contributors from the BBC.
They’ve drifted away because we started by interacting and discussing but some people moved in the comments (annoyingly) to mere abuse.
I’d like to see the old days back when the BBC contributed here and we debated as adults.
Well said Mr Vance 🙂
(apologies if that IDF pizza thing from Guidos site was wide of topic, i thought some may want to support them) 🙂
I
Bravo, David
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I have learned a great deal from this site – but only from people who argue their case and give their sources. The case has been made here (with links) for anyone to accept the anti-Israel bias in BBC reporting. The global warming scam with reference to the corrosive relationship between green advocacy groups and BBC reporters is another point now irrefutable .
There are some very informed people contributing to this site (“when I worked in the cabinet office” was one comment that shook me some months ago, I think from John Anderson in Spain?). This site shouldn’t be simply a rant-fest. I welcome Jim Dandy, Scott etc.
Good work, Vance. Keep the INFORMATION and INFORMED COMMENT coming.
I dont know if its been noted before, but Melanie Phillips linked to B-BBC the other day. I’m sure that upped the traffic, aside from ‘events dear boy, events’.
Yes, I highlighted this but got the usual nonsense from nicked emus for doing so.
David, this needed saying after the rapid descent from civility on the site in past week or so. Thanks for reminding us all that Biased BBC is a forum and not the Colosseum.
Well said, DV. Thank you.
Well said David, I kind of suppose it can become a slanging match quite easily in here are times, (Especially for a bit of a literal oaf as myself) so, allow me to apologize for any rudeness on my part, I will try my best to keep myself in check in future.
From what I’ve seen, the BBC apologists haven’t exactly been polite themselves. If fact, I’ve repeatedly seen Jim Dandy be the first to bite and resort to ad hominem remarks where before there weren’t any being made.
The left love to hate. They were inculcated at university by the thousands [ a guess] of ‘Howard Kirks’ and similar, they treat reasoned debate as weakness, much as their beloved Muslim ‘brothers’.They deny, deceive, dissemble and detract from all that is fair and honest in life, they are not worth a light, and i for one will fight these worthless traitors and rail against them until i am taken from this earth.The country is rotted out with them and it is no time for appeasement
Apart from ” p*ss off a***hole”, I think my record here is squeaky clean.
Apart from that.
Mrs. Lincoln’s favourite theatre critic.
first to bite
By their words shall thee know them…
‘Jim Dandy says:
April 5, 2012 at 6:51 am
And because it’s bullsh1t
Reply
Guest Who says:
April 5, 2012 at 7:41 am
Careful, talk like that rather contradicts any reputation for civilised debate or, in this case, any sensible attempt at debate at all. Masks do slip when stressed, don’t they?
Reply
hippiepooter says:
April 5, 2012 at 8:24 am
Hmm, a tiny bit of ‘language’ slips in from both sides of debate from time to time. Seems rather unfair to single out Dandy for such a rarity on his part.
One man’s tiny bit of language is another’s Stockholm Syndrome?
Of course, it was a different time.
But yes, it’s still excruciating to see what some get subjected to for expressing any view.
Me, I can live with a bit of robustness (seem to recall a bit of rather personal name-calling recently in fact), but when those who are happy to sling mud suddenly wail foul when the wind changes and it comes back… I think a certain amount of highlighting of hypocrisy is warranted.
Much as certain establishment institutions seem to feel otherwise, minorities who lash out really don’t deserve special concessions if their actions have consequences.
Interestingly, as part of a project I’m working on, it appears BBC CECUTT has a strategy of needling complainants to try and provoke the merest hint of an intemperate response so that they can suddenly mount very high horses and flounce away in a fit of the vapours claiming beastliness as an excuse for pulling the plug, no matter what BBC staff can and do come out with as well.
Bullshit is rather mild. And it refers to the indefinite article so isn’t ad hom.
I’m am troubled by calling you an a…hole though. You struck a low blow at a sensitive time. But I do on reflection apologise.
Accepted.
If still reserving the right to not accept the inevitable semantics & qualifiers that are still introduced to reason into (poor) excuse.
But more gracious and credible than Mr. Marr at his ‘bad moment’, so I’ll take what is on offer.
Bravo. This site is about opinions regarding whether the BBC is biased. It’s quite a simple concept.
Agreed, I tend to lurk in the background but read most posts and love that there is no moderation and most people argue there point with links where necessary to enable me to make up my own mind. I also like the fact that certain posters feel they can come on here and disagree with the majority and put there point across and it would be a shame if they did not due to abuse from other posters. Discussion is most definitely appreciated. Keep up the good work all those who post and take part!
I have made certain comments to certain Beebatrons, like accusing Dandy of being a racist when he was consistently using racist insults. I will try to improve but apologise in advance if I let them drag me down to their level again.
Most of the “ad hom” attacks, although not all I am sure, are started by the left when they see the evidence shown is unarguable. The reason why it has been worse lately is that they feel events have put them on the run at the minute, which is also why more of them are crawling out of the woodwork than ever before.
I would prefer to see proper debate rather than points scoring and insults, but that’s often all they use.
You’ve got the wrong man there.
Yes, it was the late, unlamented Nicodemus who was the racist, forever slagging off white men of a certain age. Only last week he took his first tottering steps into heterophobia, so not only were commenters on this sight white, angry, old…but also ‘straight’. By then madness had taken hold, of course, & his addiction to vitriolic, mindless abuse was in the ascendant. His prejudices were on open display, & some of his rants would have graced a UAF website. He had become simply assertoric, and therefore, as debating goes, redundant. The drug is always stronger than the man. For his own good, a period of rehab can only be a good thing.
A person constantly boosting his own credentials, as Nic so often did is, in my experience, very often somebody of low self-esteem, & a person who feels the world hasn’t quite had the decency to recognise his brilliance. Aside from some occasional valid points, far too often he was ‘The Boy with a Thorn in His Side’.
‘A person constantly boosting his own credentials’
I’ve always wondered why it is that the ‘I’ve never commented before, but…’ first timers whose debuts are mainly to say goodbye, often seem to add biographical enhancements that are of zero relevance and in any case cannot be verified… little old ladies to uncover cover Deep Throats for the East Cheam Gazette sharing their centuries of wisdom banging hot metal.
And also, for fun.. [sigh]….
was knackered emu banned or did she do a flounce-off?
I hope Nicked was not banned. We need input from actual journalists.
‘Yes, it was the late, unlamented Nicodemus who was the racist, forever slagging off white men of a certain age’.
And also made it pretty clear the world would be a better place when all The Angry Old White Men (who just happen to hold different view’s to Nicked’s) have departed this mortal coil – an opinion I have heard from other Leftists, too, so it would appear to be a part of their political culture (also identified in another thread – brainwash the kids then wait for the old folks to die).
When such intolerant views – bordering on the fascistic – are expressed, it should be no surprise when robust banter (but not personal insults) ensues.
Jim, I must apologise. You are right about that one. I’m sure there was some ad hom you were responsible for but I can’t remember what – must be middle age dementia.
Apology genuinely meant.
Credit to you.
As to ad homs, it all rather depends on definition.
let’s debate in a civil way.
Even the most immune can stray.
No problem. I’m a mildly apoplectic white man myself. And straight as a die.
😉
DV, you’ve had a lightness off touch on this issue that I’ve respected a lot, but yes, now its time to get heavy.
Yes, agree. Let’s ban swearing for a start. Some of the foul language is appalling and does this site no favours.
Hang on, these c*nts have just been outed as having completely fabricated the basis on which they reported the climate change debate, probably causing hundreds of OAPs to die unnecessarily as a result of fuel poverty and the average household to struggle to pay their inflated fuel bills to survive, and you worry about calling them a bunch of c*nts.
Which part of reality are you denying ?
If you wish to debate on this site with me then, please, don’t bother swearing; there are thousands of words to choose from without resorting to foul language. If you wish to swear just ignore my comments and I’ll ignore your’s. Simples.
Chuff off.
Charming.
David, Warning heeded. I shall keep on topic and debate the issues, not the person making them.
As for banning swearing, occasionally, a colourful metaphor carries more weight and releases stress.
Surely anyone contravening the code of conduct on here could be asked to step aside?
It’s a shame you’ve had to say it again, DV. By and large, I prefer an unmoderated forum. But I’d prefer that people lay off the ad-homs just because they have a different opinion to others. That’s not to say people shouldn’t be told they’re talking nonsense, if it is perceived to be so. But it can be said without being abusive.
However I am perfectly happy for swearing to be automatically moderated out. I know Guido does that, and that people get round it by swapping numbers and letters, but I think it still does the job. Just as long as it doesn’t pick up too many innocent posts about Scunthorpe.
‘not to say people shouldn’t be told they’re talking nonsense, if it is perceived to be so. But it can be said without being abusive.’
Indeed.
‘people get round it by swapping numbers and letters’
Yes, but only mildly on occasion, and like sh1ps that ferry bulls, maybe best left to sail into the night, bellowing.
Ehhh, you’ve just reminded me – I’ve not heard that old joke in ages ‘If Typhoo put the tea in Britain, who put the **** in Scunthorpe‘ – probably because that particular tea advert died the death a long while ago, along with the Brooke Bond chimps – weren’t they great? Probably animal rights that got them banned, but to me they always looked like they were having a whale of a time (gazes misty-eyed into far distance, daydreaming of a childhood of hot oxo and Wagon Wheels, sugar butties, tater hash, pigs liver and onions, penny spanish, aniseed balls and catapults – the latter two forming a lethal combination from the back row of the Saturday matinee – chapped legs, penny bangers, spuds baked in the bonfire, kick-can, playing footie in the street after dark, street cricket with chalked wickets on the wall, etc etc).
Aye, that were a childhood alreet.
…jumpers for goalposts…
I’ve always thought the best way to avoid the obvious trolling is to put an ignore button on the forum
then they inane ramblings of the psychotic(and that is in fact what some of them do appear to be) can be safely disregarded and consigned to the dustbin of interwebs oblivion
thanks DV – lets make that a thanks to everyone who provides information and good debate to this site – and I really do prefer it if the language is kept clean – I need an alternative, well informed site to keep me abreast of what is happening in the world – and £3 billion at the BBC doesn’t do it, and bBBC does.
Thankfully I have a special dispensation to continue referring to Dopey Dez The Dimwit Droid as Dopey Dez The Dimwit Droid.
Good job we don’t have troll called Chaz, then!
“I want you all to engage and debate but to do without lowering yourself to vicious comments and attacks.” *****I suggest you take yourself over to the Friday open thread and peruse the comments made about a dead child. If you are in any way connected with running this site you should take action against those posting vile comments and ensure no further comments in the same vein are permitted.
Hang on, what were the vile comments exactly?
And you might question the motives of the man of many jumpers who carries round a dead child for hours on end as a political stunt. And do we have rock solid evidence there was a child in that bundle?
Not that we should be overly sceptical about films coming out of Palestine, of course.