On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote
in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur =A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women, and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one time
it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly, it has
long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

Which are great. But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or
stop accepting the license fee.

The Beeb may not be perfect, but, unlike some propaganda outlets run by
a former Aussie, they do a good approximation of fair and balanced.

Roger Ailes would kill himself before trying to make his folks actually
try to be fair and balanced.

In message

1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

Which are great. But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or stop
accepting the license fee.

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Aug 1, 11:54*pm, Graeme wrote:
In message

* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

Which are great. *But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. *They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or stop
accepting the license fee.

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster
is?

Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". These US are always ion the wrong. The UK is
normally in the wrong. Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors. This is often not stated, but almost always implied.
Let me give you one historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age
those words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every
night from the BBC. We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet
Cong atrocities", only the "bad" Americans. Now, no one would argue
that the servicemen of any nation always behave impeccably under
pressure.

A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States from whence hundred of
boats fled for fear of our regime. Yet I did not hear the BBC and its
fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied fight against an insipid
evil may have been right.

This is but one example. The editors of Pravda could only wish for
the skills, not to say cajones, of the BBC.

1506 wrote:

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age
those words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every
night from the BBC. We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation"

Er, not exactly recent, is it?

And "American aggression in Vietnam" describes something that certainly
happened. The war certainly took place in Vietnam (more or less, except
when the alleged good guys decided they would visit Laos etc.) and
involved Americans, and they were certainly aggressive, even on occasion
destroying entire villages "to save them". It didn't happen in USA,
which is why the BBC never reported any North Vietnamese aggression in
the USA.

As for "Viet-Cong" well, that was just a name made up by someone in the
USA to make them sound scary, wasn't it. If they had been correctly
described as "Viet-Minh", then I fear too many people in Blighty would
have been put in mind of Neddy Seagoon et al.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309765.html
(37 109 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:54*pm, Graeme wrote:
In message

* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

Which are great. *But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. *They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or
stop accepting the license fee.

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.


Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". These US are always ion the wrong. The UK is normally
in the wrong. Ethnically fair complected people are always the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is a
lefty. Just so long as we know where we stand.

NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon of
acceptability?

This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you one
historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from the
BBC.

Another fantasy.

Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on the
BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities", only
the "bad" Americans.

Cite?

Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...


A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

*from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. Yet I did not
hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied fight
against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid enough
to get involved in. Possibly the only good thing you could say about Harold
Wilson. And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?


This is but one example.

But not a credible one.

The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say cajones,
of the BBC.

Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with their
gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

[snip]

As for "Viet-Cong" well, that was just a name made up by someone in the
USA to make them sound scary, wasn't it. If they had been correctly
described as "Viet-Minh", then I fear too many people in Blighty would
have been put in mind of Neddy Seagoon et al.

Scuse me while I mop up the coffee from the keyboard...

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:



Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?


Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". *These US are always ion the wrong. *The UK is normally
in the wrong. *Ethnically fair complected people are always the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is a
lefty. *Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive. No race has a monopoly on genocidal
behavior.

NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon of
acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you one
historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from the
BBC. *

Another fantasy.

I was there, I heard it.

Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on the
BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities", only
the "bad" Americans. *

Cite?

Sure, I kept a collection of newsreel!

Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...

It was a shameful episode.

Meanwhile the VC and NVA commited minor atrocities every night that
went largely unreportd.



A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? *that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

The union in which I live. We have 50 states. That would be plural.
Refering to these states in the plural is not unknown here. Do you
have a problem with that?

*from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. *Yet I did not
hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied fight
against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid enough
to get involved in. *Possibly the only good thing you could say about Harold
Wilson. *And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?

No, bad word choice. Thanks for the correction.

You are wrong. Australia had a very real and effective involvement.
The United Kingdom and the RoC had unacknowledged boots on the
ground. In the UK's case SAS troops did serve under US commanders.
Expect an official denial if you ask in Whitehall.




This is but one example. *

But not a credible one.

It is a major one. I am not the first to have noticed.

The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say cajones,
of the BBC.

Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with their
gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

You mean those of us who actually know Nam Vets?

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:



Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.



Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". *These US are always ion the wrong. *The UK is
normally in the wrong. *Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. *Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive.

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.


NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.


This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you
one historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from
the BBC. *

Another fantasy.

I was there, I heard it.

I doubt you were or did. Please cite exact instances of the BBC, nobody
else, using the exact expression 'American aggression in Vietnam' in an
editorial context. Quoting someone else, eg US senators, saying it doesn't
count.


Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on
the BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied
States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities",
only the "bad" Americans. *

Cite?

Sure, I kept a collection of newsreel!

In which case you will have no problem quoting exact details.


Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...

It was a shameful episode.

Meanwhile the VC and NVA commited minor atrocities every night that
went largely unreportd.

Mai Lai was hardly a minor atrocity.




A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? *that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

The union in which I live. We have 50 states. That would be plural.
Refering to these states in the plural is not unknown here. Do you
have a problem with that?

Yes.


*from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. *Yet I did
not hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied
fight against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid
enough to get involved in. *Possibly the only good thing you could say
about Harold Wilson. *And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?

No, bad word choice. Thanks for the correction.

You are wrong. Australia had a very real and effective involvement.

I hate to disillusion you but Australia is not, and was not then, part of the
United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom and the RoC had unacknowledged boots on the ground. In
the UK's case SAS troops did serve under US commanders. Expect an official
denial if you ask in Whitehall.


In which case, waht evidence have you, other than unsubstantiated rumour,
that such deployments took place?




This is but one example. *

But not a credible one.

It is a major one. I am not the first to have noticed.

No, I expect Sarah Palin might have noticed, once someone had explained
where Vietnam was. Whether they'd be able to convince her it wasn't Al
Quaeda is another problem.


The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say
cajones, of the BBC.

Do you mean cojones?


Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with
their gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

You mean those of us who actually know Nam Vets?


I know some 'Nam Vets' as you quaintly term them. I doubt the vast majority
of them have ever watched a BBC News broadcast from that era.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Aug 2, 11:07*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.



Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". *These US are always ion the wrong. *The UK is
normally in the wrong. *Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. *Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive. *

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. *I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.



NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.


..
..
..
..
..
..
../ //
//
/
Plonk.

Welcome to my killfile. Enjoy the company of "Bruce", Fendton, and
Gloidster.

Oh, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.

In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:07*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:09*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * 1506 wrote:

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.

So you admit that the BBC is biased?

Non-sequitor.



Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". *These US are always ion the wrong. *The UK is
normally in the wrong. *Ethnically fair complected people are always
the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is
a lefty. *Just so long as we know where we stand.

That is deeply offensive. *

Racism generally is deeply offensive, I'm glad you admit that.

No race has a monopoly on genocidal behavior.

I fail to see the relevance of that comment. *I would, however, agree that in
the abstract it is correct.



NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon
of acceptability?

Do you really want to keep this up?

You are the one proposing neo-nazi interpretations of world events.


.
.
.
.
.
.
./ //
//
/
Plonk.

Welcome to my killfile.

Oh not another twerp*with an imaginary killfile.

Enjoy the company of "Bruce", Fendton, and Gloidster.

Oh, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.


Took you long enough to work it out. And I note you don't even understand
Godwin's law.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/