BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
pk said:Well I'm now absolutely convinced Fela Fan doesn't have the first fucking clue about how media reporting and press agencies work.
LMFAO!
Fuck me he is utterly clueless.
I'd say 50% or more of the stuff I cut for news channels is agency feeds.
I'd say if you looked ignored the domestic stuff and focused completely on the international stories, I'd say 80% of the international news stories I cut are from wire feeds.
And yes Fela like PK I work for several news broadcasters.
Don't mock Fela, he won't learn that way...
Still, given that he's continually drawn to spouting such clueless bollocks so confidently at his age, I think he's beyond assistance really. For all the high-falluting language, pontificating posts and crap about mirrors, the breathtaking naivety and factual-blindness shine through. Perhaps he can engage brain before posting next time.
Still, given that he's continually drawn to spouting such clueless bollocks so confidently at his age, I think he's beyond assistance really. For all the high-falluting language, pontificating posts and crap about mirrors, the breathtaking naivety and factual-blindness shine through. Perhaps he can engage brain before posting next time.
Incredible. Yet another great Urban 75 pile-on.
Why do so many threads here degenerate into pissing contests so easily? Is it really that difficult to simply disagree with someone without launching straight into ad hom?
I'm sure the BNP and their like (not to mention the elements of the state that take any interest in dissidents) are quaking in their boots seeing so many of their potential opponents continually rip eachother to pieces. And don't tell me it's just the intardnet either (or that it's just restricted to 911 related threads) - I've seen exactly the same behaviour in too many activist groups, events and so on, whether socialist or anarchist, too many personal attacks, vendettas, stupid internal divisions and egotistical meanderings that blunt any effectiveness their organised action may have otherwise had.
*awaits flame response*
Why do so many threads here degenerate into pissing contests so easily? Is it really that difficult to simply disagree with someone without launching straight into ad hom?
I'm sure the BNP and their like (not to mention the elements of the state that take any interest in dissidents) are quaking in their boots seeing so many of their potential opponents continually rip eachother to pieces. And don't tell me it's just the intardnet either (or that it's just restricted to 911 related threads) - I've seen exactly the same behaviour in too many activist groups, events and so on, whether socialist or anarchist, too many personal attacks, vendettas, stupid internal divisions and egotistical meanderings that blunt any effectiveness their organised action may have otherwise had.
*awaits flame response*
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Nah, I'd pretty much agree with that assesment - it's not so much the triumph of capitalism or the fash, more the failure of everyone else...
I can't believe this thread is still going on![BBC mode]guinnessdrinker said:
"The long running thread "BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened" tonight finally collapsed" ....
.... Oh, bugger ....
[/BBC mode]
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Darios said:
You have a fair point in general--as I have seen here when daring to raise the Copeland scandal. Part of it is related to the internet though--if primary information/research isn't on the net, a standard form of abusive attack is for opponents to claim there isn't any, or it is made up
Some of us old-style dissidents see the whole 9/11 cult as themselves part of the problem---visit www.911cultwatch.org.uk to find out why. The fact that the UK 9/11 Truth Movement is headed by two lying spooks--Shayler & Machon--should surely give rational beings cause for thought. Not so the 9/11 cult however!
I agree, however I would say apropos this thread, that it is based on an (unproven) assumption--that WTC Building 7 was a 'planned demolition'. Only within this context, can there be a possibility of the BBC having 'inside knowledge'. Not that I have much sympathy for the BBC--it is infuriating that they will debate with the 9/11 cult but have never given proper responses to detailed (genuine) demolition-jobs by myself & colleagues over the years of Macintyre Undercover, Peter Taylor's True Spies & the Simon Ford/Searchlight 'Secret Agent' programme. Evidently, it is easier for them to trade blows with fruitcakes than genuine critics.
tarannau said:Don't mock Fela, he won't learn that way...
Still, given that he's continually drawn to spouting such clueless bollocks so confidently at his age, I think he's beyond assistance really. For all the high-falluting language, pontificating posts and crap about mirrors, the breathtaking naivety and factual-blindness shine through. Perhaps he can engage brain before posting next time.
No, mock away, it's a frequent thing round here. At least i've provided some of you sad bastards with a target.
Whether i've been ignorant is not really the question is it? It's much more about you lot being able to display some of your pathetic need to disdain people who might not say what you say.
Personally taranau, the language you use here to describe a fellow human being reflects pretty badly on you, as it does on others who've joined in on the big kicking. It makes my apparant ignorance pale into nothing with the abuse you like to dish out to other people.
Shame on the lot of you. I'd rather be ignorant than a person who gets kicks out of dissing others.
editor said:
Yes editor, i understand. I've used similar situations in my job, illustrating the presence of people's expectations and biases.
And what about the journo who understands the bigger picture and just writes about what he sees, and nothing else? When i spoke earlier i had in mind the context of war, and in particular how vietnam was reported.
Then there's the journo who understands the bigger picture, yet still introduces his own agenda and/or that of his readers.
Then there's the journo who thinks he understands the bigger picture...
Then there's the journo who knows nothing about war, but sees a mass-killing going on, and simply records down what he sees...
We could go on forever. It never really helps to assume others are coming from a position of ignorance. And even if they are, educate them, don't vilify them.
Which to be fair you didn't, but others fared far worse. They could not resist attacking me personally, doing their best to rubbish me as a person. I'd rather be the target of nasty character assassinations than to be the instigator.
Source?Larry O'Hara said:
Darios said:
What I find more incredible is that those you put in the "dissident" camp don't reply to the questions they themselves provoke.
I don't find it difficult at all. I don't "launch ad hominem attacks" at all (you may correct me if I ever did that anywhere on this message board).
On the other hand you don't seem to find any insult in it to see that your "dissidents" simply refuse to answer (simple) questions.
To stay on topic: If you read the whole thread, what is - in your view - the intention of the thread starter?
I don't know. I didn't get answers so far.
salaam.
TAE said:D.B. announces collapse of thread before it happens!
he is part of the conspiracy, don't you know?
Why do so many conspiraloon and counter-conspiraloon sites make you wade through so much crap before you get to the important bits. I really get tired of reading so much rubbish (from both sides) repeated three or four times. Give a bloody abstract then give the supporting details ONCE.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
as you well know, the comments by yourself & fellow-trolls/wreckers on the Copeland documentary thread. Which, however, have only stiffened my resolve to pursue this case.detective-boy said:
Larry O'Hara said:
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Larry O'Hara said:
Thing is, much like Jazzz's wibblings, your story doesn't really hold much water.
And when this is pointed out to you, you just fly off the handle.
It appears you don't have enough conviction in yourself, or your theory, to calmly explain what makes you so sure of your facts.
I don't know if this is relevant, but a friend of mine, his parents ran a highly influential film company which used to produce community activism movies in the 70's in London. These films and the way in which they were made were so influential that they ended up on many university course degree syllabus' in the 70s-80s. The film 'Fly A Flag For Poplar' was one of theirs.
So, my friend created a Wikipedia page about his parent's achievements. He posted it, with links and images.
It was removed 24 hours later.
This worried me and I searched about for other online traces of some of the great traditions and projects of the dissidents of the 70s and 80s. I could find very little (some stuff, not as much as I'd hoped to find).
This filled me with some fear that the internet as it is has created a revisionist history, in which many of the struggles and achievements of the left have been edited out of history.
This could be why it's easier for conservatives, climate change denier loons (climaloons?), and right wingers to find evidence online to support their fucked-up and reprehensible beliefs.
This is a real concern, and is why people prepared to question anything should be allowed the luxury of explaining and exploring their beliefs. Sure, many may be skewed, but some may come to something.
It's essential to fill the vaccuum of left wing history in order to prove it has not always been a vehicle for statist communists and those SWP people.
The history of dissent is much wider and older than the internet gives it credit for.
Anyone know why? More importantly, what can left wing people do to mend this?
As per the WT7 report, it doesn't really matter. There has clearly been a conspiracy since 9/11 to use that event as justification for all manner of dodgy decisions. If we get to the root of those, then we have a chance of answering the question as to how implicated various forces were in the 9/11 disaster.
Oh, and shouting people down isn't debate, it's just bullying, just like anywhere else.
So, my friend created a Wikipedia page about his parent's achievements. He posted it, with links and images.
It was removed 24 hours later.
This worried me and I searched about for other online traces of some of the great traditions and projects of the dissidents of the 70s and 80s. I could find very little (some stuff, not as much as I'd hoped to find).
This filled me with some fear that the internet as it is has created a revisionist history, in which many of the struggles and achievements of the left have been edited out of history.
This could be why it's easier for conservatives, climate change denier loons (climaloons?), and right wingers to find evidence online to support their fucked-up and reprehensible beliefs.
This is a real concern, and is why people prepared to question anything should be allowed the luxury of explaining and exploring their beliefs. Sure, many may be skewed, but some may come to something.
It's essential to fill the vaccuum of left wing history in order to prove it has not always been a vehicle for statist communists and those SWP people.
The history of dissent is much wider and older than the internet gives it credit for.
Anyone know why? More importantly, what can left wing people do to mend this?
As per the WT7 report, it doesn't really matter. There has clearly been a conspiracy since 9/11 to use that event as justification for all manner of dodgy decisions. If we get to the root of those, then we have a chance of answering the question as to how implicated various forces were in the 9/11 disaster.
Oh, and shouting people down isn't debate, it's just bullying, just like anywhere else.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
pk said:
I have calmly explained it, in great detail--just not on the internet. Given this, your claim I don't have "conviction" is a non-sequitur.
I will be writing again about the Copeland case in the near future--just not on the internet. Given you patently haven't read what I have written so far, your glib disimssal of it not holding water is a classic proof of the original point I made. But I doubt you are capable of appreciating the irony of that.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
rocketman said:
You have a very interesting point here--an unaccountable group has 'decided' that these film projects are unworthy of being remembered, because they are not well-known already perhaps? Very circular. Ally this to the physical destruction of books and newspapers by libraries and you have a frightening situation.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It's Wiki posting rules - there's an appeals process to the editors on Wiki so perhaps you should go down that alley Rocketman?
Also, at the end of the day Wiki, like most websites, is a PRIVATE area. It has it's rules etc and in order to maintain the listing it's necessary to conform to those rules.
And if you're that concerned, why you could start a lefty-Wiki which does the same thing but is a repository of leftist information.
You are aware that 'the internet' isn't a sentient consciousness aren't you? That it is in fact a collection of information that people put on it? If all the info you're referring to isn't online it's because (quelle surprise) those who hold the material haven't bothered to put it online yet.
Also, at the end of the day Wiki, like most websites, is a PRIVATE area. It has it's rules etc and in order to maintain the listing it's necessary to conform to those rules.
And if you're that concerned, why you could start a lefty-Wiki which does the same thing but is a repository of leftist information.
You are aware that 'the internet' isn't a sentient consciousness aren't you? That it is in fact a collection of information that people put on it? If all the info you're referring to isn't online it's because (quelle surprise) those who hold the material haven't bothered to put it online yet.
Similar threads
