killing cyclists is fun

Quoted message said:

So *are* Fox and Clear Channel broadcasts heard as easily in the UK as are
BBC
broadcasts?

Well, lots of us have the Internet, and Fox News is easily available online as
is Clear Channel apparently.

As for on satellite/cable, I haven't a clue, as I don't use either.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

David Reuteler [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

nah, somewhat shockingly it turns out what we do here effects everyone else.
crazy, eh?

While that is hardly shocking, I am surprised that the Fox News Channel
television channel and Clear Channel radio broadcasts actually reach the UK yet
they must. After all, Guy commented on both and Guy is a pretty liberal fellow
(except when he's advocating cutting off goolies, anyway <g>😉 and we all *know*
that liberals never *EVER* comment on anything without carefully considering
all the evidence. Interminably.
So *are* Fox and Clear Channel broadcasts heard as easily in the UK as are BBC
broadcasts?

The Murdoch Empire extends to the UK in the form of BSkyB (the
sattellite/cable television company) and control of _The Sun_
(indisputably the most influential lowbrow tabloid in the UK.
Governments tremble before the influence it has over its semiliterate
readership).

Clear Channel, as far as I know, doesn't reach Blighty. However, for
broadcast radio, the UK has had the same level of consolidation for
nearly its entire broadcasting history--it just happens to be a state
corporation: the BBC.

-Luigi

Just zis Guy said:

On 25 Apr 2004 21:18:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Hunrobe) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Is Great Britain so boring that you Brits need to turn to US affairs for
entertainment?

Rupert Murdoch also owns an appreciable proportion of our news media
(both print and broadcast).

Same in Oz I believe.

Wonder why we're not all thinking alike now, given the same
mind control news media?

SMH

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Well, lots of us have the Internet, and Fox News is easily available online as
is Clear Channel apparently.

As for on satellite/cable, I haven't a clue, as I don't use either.

I'm trying desperately to not have a clue as well. I'm
suffering information overload and have decided to "tune
out", although it seems largely impossible.

As soon as the news comes on NPR, PBS, or any of the TV
networks, I move on.

The media appears to have decided we have lost the war in
Iraq (thank God the same hyper-negative media wasn't around
during WWII or we'd have lost that one too), and the US
Presidential election isn't for another 6 months.

I figure I can get caught up in October and learn whether
we've actually failed in Iraq, and check out the candidates
all without being bombarded with poll results du jour which
become irrelevant by the next day.

But it's sooo difficult!

SMH

In article <rHjic.22689$GR.3035904@attbi_s01>,

Claire Petersky said:

Don't most cyclists engage in sexual intercourse from time to time? I don't
know of any that have taken a vow of celibacy.

In that light, maybe we should amend the subject line
of this thread to something more pleasant (but not
necessarily vulgar.) Like, "Makin' whoopie with
cyclists is fun."

I have no qualms about replacing the word 'killing'
with the F word (a la George Carlin), but others might.

good ride,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On 26 Apr 2004 04:25:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Hunrobe) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

While that is hardly shocking, I am surprised that the Fox News Channel
television channel and Clear Channel radio broadcasts actually reach the UK yet
they must.

They do indeed. We can also get CNN, MTV and all sorts of other US
channels through the miracle of "400 channels and nothing to watch"
cable TV.

Quoted message said:

After all, Guy commented on both and Guy is a pretty liberal fellow
(except when he's advocating cutting off goolies, anyway <g>😉 and we all *know*
that liberals never *EVER* comment on anything without carefully considering
all the evidence. Interminably.

Heh! Whereas Conservatives pay for evidence that matches their
pre-existing position. There you have the opposite ends of the
political spectrum neatly summed up :-)

Quoted message said:

So *are* Fox and Clear Channel broadcasts heard as easily in the UK as are BBC
broadcasts?

Of course not, but the channels, the websites and the political
influence are all present here.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:40:34 -0400, <[email hidden]>,

Stephen Harding said:

Wonder why we're not all thinking alike now, given the same
mind control news media?

Some of us less invested in tin-foil beanies still value critical
thought. It's not hard to spot the [censored] but it gets tiresome
hearing it repeated ad nauseum until the cloned dolts start believing
it's the truth.
--
zk

Stephen Harding said:

Wonder why we're not all thinking alike now, given the same
mind control news media?

Some of us gave up on TV years ago, don't take a corporate daily
newspaper, and don't listen to commercial radio either.

Some of us have found that we must sample the foreign and alternative
press online to have some inkling of what's going on.

To cite a recent example, during the siege of Falluja recently, while
the Pentagon was claiming that a "fragile truce" was holding, foreign
and local accounts reported that U.S. Marines were slaughtering
civilians in numbers that exceeded 600, including over 200 women and
100 children, with over 2000 wounded. The mainstream press said
nothing while this was happening-- they just parroted what the
Pentagon was saying at their press briefings.

If the [censored] repeat a lie often enough, you might come to believe
it. But if you never hear the truth in the first place, then you have
no chance of getting the picture.

Chalo Colina

(Chalo) said:

Stephen Harding said:

Wonder why we're not all thinking alike now, given the same
mind control news media?

Some of us gave up on TV years ago, don't take a corporate daily
newspaper, and don't listen to commercial radio either.

Some of us have found that we must sample the foreign and alternative
press online to have some inkling of what's going on.

To cite a recent example, during the siege of Falluja recently, while
the Pentagon was claiming that a "fragile truce" was holding, foreign
and local accounts reported that U.S. Marines were slaughtering
civilians in numbers that exceeded 600, including over 200 women and
100 children, with over 2000 wounded. The mainstream press said
nothing while this was happening-- they just parroted what the
Pentagon was saying at their press briefings.

If the [censored] repeat a lie often enough, you might come to believe
it. But if you never hear the truth in the first place, then you have
no chance of getting the picture.

I'll bite - what makes you think the one alternate source was the one
source of truth when all the others (and common sense since there are
embedded reporters with many units in the area) dictated otherwise?
Just curious...

I read (OK, saw it on the cover of the tabloid while I was checking
out) where the US military had also killed an angel in Iraq. Oh my.
Why wasn't THAT carried on CNN? Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Chalo said:

Stephen Harding said:

Wonder why we're not all thinking alike now, given the same
mind control news media?

Some of us gave up on TV years ago, don't take a corporate daily
newspaper, and don't listen to commercial radio either.

Some of us have found that we must sample the foreign and alternative
press online to have some inkling of what's going on.

To cite a recent example, during the siege of Falluja recently, while
the Pentagon was claiming that a "fragile truce" was holding, foreign
and local accounts reported that U.S. Marines were slaughtering
civilians in numbers that exceeded 600, including over 200 women and
100 children, with over 2000 wounded. The mainstream press said
nothing while this was happening-- they just parroted what the
Pentagon was saying at their press briefings.

Crapola! The people in Fallujah have shown themselves to be
liars of the highest quality. You want to use Al Jazeera as
your news source (or whatever) simply because it's more in
line with your political POV. It feels good to have news the
way you like it.

The sole attribute of these "alternative news" sources tends
to be their anti-American or anti-Bush nature, which makes them
appealing to people who wish to feel more comfortable with their
marginally accepted political/social/economic views.

Quoted message said:

If the [censored] repeat a lie often enough, you might come to believe
it. But if you never hear the truth in the first place, then you have
no chance of getting the picture.

So absolutely true. Unfortunately, you seem to be defining "truth"
in political terms, which then makes your news sources much more
comforting.

SMH

Chalo said:

If the [censored] repeat a lie often enough, you might come to believe
it. But if you never hear the truth in the first place, then you have
no chance of getting the picture.

Of course, you have some magical way of knowing which side is lying?

Austin

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Chalo) said:

Stephen Harding said:

Wonder why we're not all thinking alike now, given the same
mind control news media?

Some of us have found that we must sample the foreign and alternative
press online to have some inkling of what's going on.

I'll bite - what makes you think the one alternate source was the one
source of truth when all the others (and common sense since there are
embedded reporters with many units in the area) dictated otherwise?
Just curious...

Because the Pentagon distributes and provides protection for embedded
reporters, it should be obvious that they have significant control
over what gets reported and in what tone.

You won't hear an accurate description of events from the principal
combatants or their proxies. There are many credible news sources
between CNN and Al Jazeera.

Dietrich

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:47:11 -0400, <[email hidden]>,

Stephen Harding said:

So absolutely true. Unfortunately, you seem to be defining "truth"
in political terms, which then makes your news sources much more
comforting.

“God told me to strike at Al Qa’ida and I struck them."
"And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Do you buy this [censored] in religious or political terms?
Do you even think it's true?
--
zk

"AustinMN" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chalo said:

If the [censored] repeat a lie often enough, you might come to believe
it. But if you never hear the truth in the first place, then you have
no chance of getting the picture.

Of course, you have some magical way of knowing which side is lying?

In this case, my current signature line answers the question nicely (see
below)
People who disagree with you might be lying.
There's little reason to suspect that those who agree with you are lying.

--
Mike Kruger
"we are more likely to "know" what we want to know than what we don't want
to know.
That human flaw is built into the very process of making intelligence
estimates."
-Richard Goodwin, NYTimes, 2/8/04

Zoot Katz said:

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:47:11 -0400, <[email hidden]>,

Stephen Harding said:

So absolutely true. Unfortunately, you seem to be defining "truth"
in political terms, which then makes your news sources much more
comforting.

“God told me to strike at Al Qa’ida and I struck them."
"And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Do you buy this [censored] in religious or political terms?
Do you even think it's true?

No on both counts, depending of course on who is supposed to have said
it.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:06:56 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So absolutely true. Unfortunately, you seem to be defining "truth"
in political terms, which then makes your news sources much more
comforting.

“God told me to strike at Al Qa’ida and I struck them."
"And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Do you buy this [censored] in religious or political terms?
Do you even think it's true?

No on both counts, depending of course on who is supposed to have said
it.

That's the weasel point of the right wing - who said it?
The left wing treats it as an out of context direct quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

I don't buy it, but I don't hesitate believing Bush hears voices.

Sadly, it's obvious that he still regularly says unbelievably dumb
things and has kept his twisted sense of humour*, so who knows?

* "Bring 'em on."
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:47:11 -0400, <[email hidden]>,

Stephen Harding said:

So absolutely true. Unfortunately, you seem to be defining "truth"
in political terms, which then makes your news sources much more
comforting.

“God told me to strike at Al Qa’ida and I struck them."
"And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Do you buy this [censored] in religious or political terms?
Do you even think it's true?

Don't know. If you don't believe in an activist God, then
it's entirely false, just as if you don't believe in a God
at all.

If you do believe in a God, then who knows.

Always risky bringing God into the political debate. It's
caused all sorts of problems for people throughout history.
That's why the US constitution attempts to separate religion
from state.

Osama Bin Laden and the various shades of Islamists are doing
the same thing of course. Maybe it's all God's plan to effect
some outcome through round about, human actions, like WWII,
and the huge scale persecution of Jews was largely responsible
for the rebirth of Israel. Yaweh can be a tough character at
times, even to those "on his side".

All I know is that these quotes were reported by a large
number of news agencies, some of which are considered "main
stream", and therefor "propaganda outlets" of the administration,
which seems a weird way to go about propagandizing.

SMH

Stephen Harding said:

Yaweh can be a tough character at
times, even to those "on his side".

boy, ain't that the truth!

2 Sam. 6:6-7

6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand
to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him
there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

and woe to any children who happen to be around.

II Kings 2: 23-25

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the
way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him,
and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of
the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare
forty and two children of them.
2:25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to
Samaria.

http://www.cforc.com/kjv/
--
david reuteler
[email hidden]

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:12:24 -0400, <[email hidden]>,

Stephen Harding said:

All I know is that these quotes were reported by a large
number of news agencies, some of which are considered "main
stream", and therefor "propaganda outlets" of the administration,
which seems a weird way to go about propagandizing.

Faux News' correspondent Wendell Goler, said Ari Fleischer told him
the story was "an invention". That's good enough for me!
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sadly, it's obvious that he still regularly says unbelievably dumb
things and has kept his twisted sense of humour*, so who knows?

* "Bring 'em on."
--

From "The Onion" today, this news [1]

Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On'
WASHINGTON, DC-In an internationally televised statement Monday, President
Bush modified a July 2003 challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S.
forces. "Terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and anti-American insurgents: Please
stop bringing it on now," Bush said at a Monday press conference. "Nine
months and 500 U.S. casualties ago, I may have invited y'all to bring it on,
but as of today, I formally rescind that statement. I would officially like
for you to step back." The president added that the "it" Iraqis should stop
bringing includes gunfire, bombings, grenade attacks, and suicide missions
of all types.

[1] The Onion is a satirical newspaper.