Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Another reason the News media is the enemy of the people.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    The BBC is in the pocket of the British government.
    For many on the Right it is considered to be a hotbed of Marxists.

    On the evidence:

    If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      It was the Leeds court that had initially blocked the media from publishing anything about Robinson's imprisonment via reporting restrictions. Had the BBC ignored those restrictions it would have been in contempt of court. It was only after two other media outlets challenged and overturned those restrictions, via the courts, that the media, in general, were free to publish.

      Do you not understand that?
      In a country with an ACTUAL free press, such a thing cannot happen. It would be protected constitutionally. Videlicet, no free press in Britain.

      From that I conclude that you do not agree with the verdicts that were handed down at the Nuremberg trials, or later, in Israel with Eichmann.
      Times change. On the heels of Nazi atrocities, I might have supported capital punishment. Today I do not.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        For many on the Right it is considered to be a hotbed of Marxists.
        Well, it is way left of center, IMO.

        That wouldn't matter if it could keep its politics out of its news reporting. It has proven that it can't.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          It was the Leeds court that had initially blocked the media from publishing anything about Robinson's imprisonment via reporting restrictions. Had the BBC ignored those restrictions it would have been in contempt of court. It was only after two other media outlets challenged and overturned those restrictions, via the courts, that the media, in general, were free to publish.

          Do you not understand that?
          I forgot to add that you are talking about Robinson's arrest. I am talking about the protest in London. A rather major event - and an event that non-government-supported British newspapers decided to report on. They stuck their necks out to report the news.

          So yes, I do understand. The BBC is a spineless lapdog for the government.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

            Well, it is way left of center, IMO.
            Then it can hardly the "spineless lapdog for the government" given that the majority of governments in the UK over the past seventy years have been Conservative.

            Or do you consider that the governments led by the likes of Churchill, McMillan, and later Mrs Thatcher, (not forgetting David Cameron and his successor, Theresa Man) have all been "way left of center"?


            On the evidence:

            If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Then it can hardly the "spineless lapdog for the government" given that the majority of governments in the UK over the past seventy years have been Conservative.

              Or do you consider that the governments led by the likes of Churchill, McMillan, and later Mrs Thatcher, (not forgetting David Cameron and his successor, Theresa Man) have all been "way left of center"?
              It is a spineless in the sense that the government tells it what to do, as already demonstrated. It is a lapdog because (unlike its British competitors) the government feeds it. We've had conservative governments here too, and yet the left-leaning parasitic PBS lives on.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                It is a spineless in the sense that the government tells it what to do, as already demonstrated. It is a lapdog because (unlike its British competitors) the government feeds it. We've had conservative governments here too, and yet the left-leaning parasitic PBS lives on.
                That did not address my point.

                You also seem to want it both ways. An organisation that is "way left of center" is unlikely to submit meekly to become "the spineless lapdog for the government", particularly when most of those governments have been on the Right and when, in some cases, government has worked very hard to repress the BBC's content and destroy its reputation. Do you know anything about Andrew Gilligan and Dr Kelly?

                Why this animus towards the BBC anyway?

                Or does all this bile stem from the incidents over that creature Yaxley-Lennon/Robinson?
                On the evidence:

                If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  That did not address my point.

                  You also seem to want it both ways. An organisation that is "way left of center" is unlikely to submit meekly to become "the spineless lapdog for the government", particularly when most of those governments have been on the Right and when, in some cases, government has worked very hard to repress the BBC's content and destroy its reputation.
                  It's all about money. My guess: the BBC leans left because - philosophically - the left believes the BBC should be financially supported. It's certainly not going to take up a position that all media outlets should abstain from government assistance.

                  Do you know anything about Andrew Gilligan and Dr Kelly?
                  Nope.

                  Why this animus towards the BBC anyway?

                  Or does all this bile stem from the incidents over that creature Yaxley-Lennon/Robinson?
                  I have never before see a "news" organization not report on a protest - a large protest - in front of the nation's capitol building - simply because it was told not to.

                  Robinson was the lynchpin to a larger issue, like Rodney King was to the L.A. riots. He is otherwise irrelevant.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                    It's all about money. My guess: the BBC leans left because - philosophically - the left believes the BBC should be financially supported. It's certainly not going to take up a position that all media outlets should abstain from government assistance.
                    It does not get government assistance. It gets the revenue from the television licence fee plus what it earns from selling its programmes abroad. The BBC can be held to ransom by a government because of the nature of its Charter and its position. Read that link I provided for you.


                    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                    Nope.
                    You should do so.


                    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                    I have never before see a "news" organization not report on a protest - a large protest - in front of the nation's capitol building - simply because it was told not to.
                    Are you referring to the event of 9 June 2018? If so, where is the report that informed you the BBC was "told not to" cover the event?

                    Several news outlets didn't cover it, I suspect because reporting the far right merely gives it the oxygen of publicity.

                    On the evidence:

                    If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      It does not get government assistance. It gets the revenue from the television licence fee ...
                      Same thing! That money funnels through government.

                      Read that link I provided for you.
                      Why should I? You obviously didn't read the link I provided, or you would know about the BBC doctoring photos and publishing misleading articles and headlines. You just went off about Robinson, so you had made your mind up the entire issue is about him.

                      Are you referring to the event of 9 June 2018? If so, where is the report that informed you the BBC was "told not to" cover the event?
                      I don't recall now. If I found a link you wouldn't read it anyway.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        Same thing! That money funnels through government.



                        Why should I? You obviously didn't read the link I provided, or you would know about the BBC doctoring photos and publishing misleading articles and headlines. You just went off about Robinson, so you had made your mind up the entire issue is about him.



                        I don't recall now. If I found a link you wouldn't read it anyway.
                        If you are going to have a temper tantrum it appears that this exchange is at an end.

                        On the evidence:

                        If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          If you are going to have a temper tantrum it appears that this exchange is at an end.
                          That was all written calmly. But you may safely retreat now.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                            That was all written calmly. But you may safely retreat now.
                            "If I found a link you wouldn't read it anyway" reads remarkably like a petulant comment.

                            Contrary to your allegation, I did look at the links you provided in post #57, if those are the ones to which you allude.

                            However, they were predominantly pictures and they did not reveal a great deal.
                            On the evidence:

                            If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              "If I found a link you wouldn't read it anyway" reads remarkably like a petulant comment.

                              Contrary to your allegation, I did look at the links you provided in post #57, if those are the ones to which you allude.

                              However, they were predominantly pictures and they did not reveal a great deal.
                              Post #59

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                                Post #59
                                Oh that one. Well again, it's all allegations and claims from different individuals.

                                However the entire issue appears to be summed up by the final paragraph of that article.


                                A combined 22 per cent of respondents felt it was either somewhat or strongly biased towards left-wing views, while 18 per cent felt it was somewhat or strongly biased towards the right. Nearly a quarter of people said they just didnít know.

                                The first sentence echoes precisely what I have observed here in the past.
                                On the evidence:

                                If there were no Patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan, no united monarchy under David and Solomon. Can the early biblical Israel described in the books of Moses, Judges, Joshua, and Samuel, ever have existed at all?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X