Text 1173, 71 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 15:32:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1619.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Paul Harper to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <8ceu72l07cpp4iu3t64rql8jb97q5ma1ej@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:52:28 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
<jt@otfresno.com> wrote:

>During the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003, the commander of the British 
>Carrier Ark Rpyal had the BBC turned off due to the nature and tenor of its 
>reporting.

I am not surprised. However, the BBC accurately reflected that the
majority (some 73% at that time) of the British public were *against*
the Iraq adventure. It is not the BBC's job to parrot the transient
government in power. It is the BBC's job to mirror the views of its
customers the British public. It does that extremely well, usually.

If the government doesn't like it, tough. The British public will vote
out a government before they give up the BBC, I am utterly convinced
of that.

>I actually spoke in haste.  I do in fact believe that the BBC is pretty 
>extremely leftist and really shouldn't be hedging my bets. I could point to 
>the global warming alarmism show you recommend sight-unseen.  Global Warming 
>is a liberal hobbyhorse.  Raising hysteria over it is a Liberal practice.  A 
>show that makes a point of doing just that can reasonably be considered 
>"liberal" especially if all it does is raise the alarm.  If no balanced 
>discussion exists in the program, if no accounting is made for what portion 
>of global warming could be nature and what could be human, no discussion of 
>what is known or unknown, no discussion of the limits of our best computer 
>modeling (or the agenda-driven money that funds nearly all cmputer models 
>whether they affirm or deny global warming) then the program is a propaganda 
>piece.
>
>You tell me how complete its presentation is, how well both sides are 
>represented, and how many important details (such as the mini-ice age of the 
>1700s) are explored and accounted for.  If it's all CO2 levels and melting 
>ics caps, it's rubbish.

You tell me. The programme is called "Are We Changing Planet Earth?"
presented by Sir David Attenborough and there is at least one torrent
of the first programme out there. Don't take my word for it, view it
first-hand yourself and form your own view independent of any
"liberal" bias I might have.

>This sort of shallow examination of the issue combined with alarmism is 
>exactly what I expect from Al Gore's film epic which is why I don't intend 
>to bother seeing it.

While I am happy to disagree with you on a fairly fundamental level,
and I'm enjoying the discourse (genuinely!) that's the first
disappointing thing you've said.  :-(

With just about every post in this sub-thread you have been calling
for evidence, proof, verification.

Yet in that paragraph you condemn something sight unseen. No proof, no
verification, no evidence. Condemned.  I thought you were better than
that.

Paul (a liberal and proud of it).
-- 
. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.
                                 
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)