BBC

[Fade and Die]

No, it was about medication and I don't want to mention the topic because it will publicly expose some of my health concerns, matters which are private.

Tixxylix addiction?

 

[Deleted member 35599]

Ok so what you mean is you want to have a dig at the BBC but don’t want to supply any evidence?

Crikey. Grauniad readers will say some silly things when being offended to find that someone doesn't conform to their liberal fascisms. Has your liberal sensitivity been proxy offended on behalf of the BBC? I already explained why. Sure, you can find an argument for that too, but I don't care. We are discussing opinion. And people are entitled to them without having to scientifically prove everything they say. There are PLENTY of examples of where the BBC has got it 100% wrong. I guess selective memories and liberal adoration are in effect. Dreary. Because I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon does not mean I am wrong, but you might think so.

Your replies are nothing to do with fact finding nor are they about trying to have an open mind, you are just looking for any means, however insignificant to dispel/discredit something you disagree with regardless of the balance, the comment about the article is one of a few points, but this has been seized on because you feel you can use it to win the argument should you find it is insubstantial. Either that or you are plain argumentative. There is plenty of evidence out there. Just I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon.

 

[TimShady]

Crikey. Grauniad readers will say some silly things when being offended to find that someone doesn't conform to their liberal fascisms. Has your liberal sensitivity been proxy offended on behalf of the BBC? I already explained why. Sure, you can find an argument for that too, but I don't care. We are discussing opinion. And people are entitled to them without having to scientifically prove everything they say. There are PLENTY of examples of where the BBC has got it 100% wrong. I guess selective memories and liberal adoration are in effect. Dreary. Because I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon does not mean I am wrong, but you might think so.

Your replies are nothing to do with fact finding nor are they about trying to have an open mind, you are just looking for any means, however insignificant to dispel/discredit something you disagree with regardless of the balance, the comment about the article is one of a few points, but this has been seized on because you feel you can use it to win the argument should you find it is insubstantial. Either that or you are plain argumentative. There is plenty of evidence out there. Just I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon.

That’s a lot of words to confirm what I thought.

 

[Billysboots]

Folks. It’s Sunday. That makes it a day of rest. So give it a rest please.

One warning has already been issued for some unnecessarily personal comments which overstep the mark. I’ve also tidied the thread up.

No more please.

 

[Red devil]

Folks. It’s Sunday. That makes it a day of rest. So give it a rest please.

One warning has already been issued for some unnecessarily personal comments which overstep the mark. I’ve also tidied the thread up.

No more please.

Good lad

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No, it was about medication and I don't want to mention the topic because it will publicly expose some of my health concerns, matters which are private.

Nobody would have known it was of direct relevance to yourself if you hadn’t mentioned it was…there would have been no reason for anyone to suspect there was a personal aspect to it. An assertion made with absolutely no evidence being given is verging on the worthless, in fact any worth it has can be in supporting the opposite of the assertion being made - especially when the evidence claimed is by admission readily available. Beside…when descriptions (or whatever) of health matters are considered ‘biased’…most know the world in which the complainant lives.

But hey. Bash on.

 

[rudebhoy]

I thoroughly enjoyed BBC's Dracula.
Not long after that time, I read a science article on their news site masquerading as fact. I did not think what I was reading stood up to scrutiny, so I looked into their source, it was a school child who had a GCSE in biology that they were quoting as facts about breakthrough science. In fact it was downright insulting.

That combined with R2's tendency to cater and pander to a younger audience that doesn't listen to the radio, whilst ignoring the tastes of their existing audience and the BBC bias and propaganda.... and the lies.

I had enough. I unplugged the aerial, cancelled my license, I don't listen to their radio stations and I don't use the website any more. As sad as I am to say it, I will not be sorry if they cease to be. I will lament the loss of what they once were, but not what they have been in recent years.

Hoping for your sake they don’t make a second series of Dracula. Imagine how conflicted you will be