http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

On Dec 26, 9:24*am, harry wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

Total waste of bandwidth...

Joe

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

Occasional OT posts are one thing. Continuous are another.

Many groups have been destroyed by such activity. With or
without the use of "OT" in the subject line.

Please take your continuous political commentary to.......

alt.politics
alt.politics.usa
uk.politics.misc

.....or the hundred or so more appropriate newsgroups.

wrote the following:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?


Al Jazeera is the Fox news of the muslim world.


Occasional OT posts are one thing. Continuous are another.

Many groups have been destroyed by such activity. With or
without the use of "OT" in the subject line.

Please take your continuous political commentary to.......

alt.politics
alt.politics.usa
uk.politics.misc

....or the hundred or so more appropriate newsgroups.



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Dec 26, 10:15*pm, willshak wrote:
wrote the following:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

Al Jazeera is the Fox news of the muslim world.



Occasional OT posts are one thing. Continuous are another.

Many groups have been destroyed by such activity. With or
without the use of *"OT" in the subject line.

Please take your continuous political commentary to.......

alt.politics
alt.politics.usa
uk.politics.misc

....or the hundred or so more appropriate newsgroups.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

harry wrote:

Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Proudly, no.

On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:


Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?


Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

On Dec 27, 12:07*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches *etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Proudly, no.

Thought so. Drivel journalism. Watched by the brain dead.

On Dec 27, 12:17*pm, George wrote:
On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:



Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches *etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

I am not the only one. When there's no DIY problems it keeps the
groups going. Groups fail spontaneously after a while.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:17:18 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:


Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?


Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

What he doesn't understand is this. By posting O.T. subject matter
he is taking away our choice. He assumes that what is important to him
is important to us. Our choice has always been dictated by choosing
what group we subscribe to and what group we do not subscribe to.
Now it seems that he believes he can make that choice for us.

His reasoning will be that you don't have to read the O.T. posts. If
everybody used that reasoning them why do we bother having 50000
different groups. There are political newsgroups that he could post
to. This poster has decided to not use them. Instead he wants to
dictate to us. We shouldn't have to filter him or anybody else who
decided to use home repair as their personal O.T. venting forum.

Please post political commentary to ....alt. politics or the hundred
or so other political newsgroups.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

I too have seen groups destroyed by people with their own agenda.

If everyone decided that all they had to do was put O.T. in front of
their post as their justification then imagine what this group could
become.

Political commentary
Reality TV
abortion arguments
BSDM
NAMBLA
ect.

Groups are destroy by having to filter to much content that
has no business being there in the first place.

In article ,
wrote:


What he doesn't understand is this. By posting O.T. subject matter
he is taking away our choice. He assumes that what is important to him
is important to us. Our choice has always been dictated by choosing
what group we subscribe to and what group we do not subscribe to.
Now it seems that he believes he can make that choice for us.

You still have a choice. Put the serial OT'ers into your kill file.
The same with any offending threads. If this place doesn't do you enough
good to take the 15 seconds to killfile, then you probably shouldn't
hand here.
dictate to us. We shouldn't have to filter him or anybody else who
decided to use home repair as their personal O.T. venting forum.
Why not? It is a very small price to pay if you are that interested
in the on-topic posts. Other than that, you are trying to bend Usenet to
your will and, at least for 15 years I have been hanging around, that
way madness lies.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 12/27/2010 8:32 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 27, 12:17 pm, wrote:
On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:



Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

I am not the only one. When there's no DIY problems it keeps the
groups going. Groups fail spontaneously after a while.

That is the sort of flawed logic juveniles use. "Everybody is doing it..."

This group is doing just fine without your political comments.

On 12/27/2010 10:26 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


What he doesn't understand is this. By posting O.T. subject matter
he is taking away our choice. He assumes that what is important to him
is important to us. Our choice has always been dictated by choosing
what group we subscribe to and what group we do not subscribe to.
Now it seems that he believes he can make that choice for us.

You still have a choice. Put the serial OT'ers into your kill file.
The same with any offending threads. If this place doesn't do you enough
good to take the 15 seconds to killfile, then you probably shouldn't
hand here.
dictate to us. We shouldn't have to filter him or anybody else who
decided to use home repair as their personal O.T. venting forum.
Why not? It is a very small price to pay if you are that interested
in the on-topic posts. Other than that, you are trying to bend Usenet to
your will and, at least for 15 years I have been hanging around, that
way madness lies.

Who is trying to "bend Usenet"? Harry is simply being reminded that what
he has decided to do is impolite and unwanted. This is no different than
politely asking say noisy folks to tone it down or whatever.

We shouldn't have to filter him or anybody else who
decided to use home repair as their personal O.T. venting forum.

Why not? It is a very small price to pay if you are that interested
in the on-topic posts. Other than that, you are trying to bend Usenet to
your will and, at least for 15 years I have been hanging around, that
way madness lies.

Why not? There are forums for political commentary.

There have been 70 O.T. political posts over the last six months.
Who's trying to bend Usenet to whose will?????

In article ,
George wrote:

Who is trying to "bend Usenet"? Harry is simply being reminded that what
he has decided to do is impolite and unwanted. This is no different than
politely asking say noisy folks to tone it down or whatever.

And has been an integral part of Usenet from the getgo (for better or,
in the OPs view, worse). Is is sorta like going into a bar and expecting
everyone to quiet down. Maybe it would be a nicer world if people did,
but all you are gonna do is get frustrated and leave. If the place
(overall) has enough interesting information, then taking some time to
tune out the non-interesting stuff is just a part of doing business in
the Wild West.
To my experience, what runs people out of groups is more when a
couple or three people start harassing others. It is the personal
vendettas.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
wrote:

We shouldn't have to filter him or anybody else who
decided to use home repair as their personal O.T. venting forum.

Why not? It is a very small price to pay if you are that interested
in the on-topic posts. Other than that, you are trying to bend Usenet to
your will and, at least for 15 years I have been hanging around, that
way madness lies.

Why not? There are forums for political commentary.

There have been 70 O.T. political posts over the last six months.
Who's trying to bend Usenet to whose will?????
OT is a part of Usenet tradition, as it bitching about it and then
running off, I guess. The bottom line is this. It hasn't gone away in
the past, it isn't gonna go away now. So, you have to decide if the
wheat is worth the chaff. You can change the signal to noise ratio
considerably by just killfiling a couple of people and a subject or
three. If the forum isn't worth a little time and effort, then maybe it
is time to move on to a web-based or moderated group. Heck start your
own to have complete control. You harping about what makes you upset is
not exactly improving the S/N ratio, either ya know.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Why not? There are forums for political commentary.

There have been 70 O.T. political posts over the last six months.
Who's trying to bend Usenet to whose will?????

OT is a part of Usenet tradition, as it bitching about it and then
running off, I guess. The bottom line is this. It hasn't gone away in
the past, it isn't gonna go away now.

There is no reason to continually bombard home repair with political
commentary when there are political forums available.

It's real simple. Either YOU believe you know what's best for us by
ignoring OUR choice of NOT subscribing to a political newsgroup, or
you RESPECT our choice of not subscribing to political newsgroups by
taking your political commentary to a political newsgroup.

In article ,
wrote:



It's real simple. Either YOU believe you know what's best for us by
ignoring OUR choice of NOT subscribing to a political newsgroup, or
you RESPECT our choice of not subscribing to political newsgroups by
taking your political commentary to a political newsgroup.

Time to take my own advice, I guess.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:38:03 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



It's real simple. Either YOU believe you know what's best for us by
ignoring OUR choice of NOT subscribing to a political newsgroup, or
you RESPECT our choice of not subscribing to political newsgroups by
taking your political commentary to a political newsgroup.

Time to take my own advice, I guess.

I do. I do not subscribe to a political newsgroup. Stop trying to make
this one.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

A) Do you think this might be biased? Al Jazeera (AJ) has its own tv
station in the DC area, 24 hours a day, and they don't even mention
that. Yeah, your url is ignorant or very biased.

B) Even in what you cite, there is only one example of one person 9
years ago trying to censor them. Everyone else is just criticising
it. Don't you know the difference?

C) the longest paragraph says (my comments interspersed):
On October 12, 2008 Al Jazeera broadcast interviews with people
attending a Sarah Palin 2008 United States presidential election
rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio, with interviewees making comments
about Barack Obama such as "he regards white people as trash".

Did people at a Palin rally really say that? Because you know it's
not true, don't you? Either people at the Palin rally didn't say it
and Al Jazeera was staging interviews using planted interviewees, or
the people they interviewed were gullible or liars themselves. Do you
think a responsible news organization shows fools or liars making
false statements about a candidate for president of the US? Not
unless the point of the story is the ignorance of the public, which
would also be an anti-US message, but I think their message was far
more anti-US.

The
report received over 2 million views on YouTube[96] and elicited
comment by Colin Powell: "Those kind of images going out on Al
Jazeera are killing us."

Don't you agree that it's bad for the US, and unfairly bad, to
broadcast lies like that about what Obama believes?

[97] Following this the Washington Post ran
an op-ed,[98] claiming the news channel was deliberately encouraging
"anti-American sentiment overseas",[98]

What would you call it? Isn't that what they were doing? Unless they
were so stupid as to believe what the people at the Palin rally
alleged about Obama's views on white people.

which was criticized by Al
Jazeera as "a gratuitous and uninformed shot at Al Jazeera's
motives", as the report was just one of "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage".[97]"

Well of course AJ is going to complain. No one, especialy a "news
network" likes to be criticized, and "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage" is a cliche. That's what everyone says. How
diverse was it? Do they quote fools telling lies about Republicans
too? Is that what makes it diverse? I'll bet when corporate America
or big labor, or at least one of those two, makes stupid denials, you
recognize that they are stupid, but when AJ does it, you just assume
they're telling the truth about themselves. How much AJ have you
watched anyhow that you can tell if the criticism of them is fair or
not? Or maybe you like it when it's anti-US, so you don't even
notice.

D) Has it occurred to you that Al Jazeera might well be an enemy of
the US? There are plenty of enemies of the US in the Arab countries.
Why do you trust *AJ*? Which do you think is more effective,
screaming about how evil the US is, or trying to sound fair and
balanced while choosing stories that make the US look bad, both in the
US and even more so during their broadcasts and cablecasts and
satcasts abroad? Do you understand how propaganda works?

E) We don't know how patriotic you are. Maybe you don't care about
A, B, C, or D.

On Dec 27, 7:09*pm, Bubba wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

A) Do you think this might be biased? *Al Jazeera (AJ) has its own tv
station in the DC area, 24 hours a day, and they don't even mention
that. * Yeah, your url is ignorant or very biased.

B) Even in what you cite, there is only one example of one person 9
years ago trying to censor them. *Everyone else is just criticising
it. *Don't you know the difference?

C) the longest paragraph says (my comments interspersed):

On October 12, 2008 Al Jazeera broadcast interviews with people
attending a Sarah Palin 2008 United States presidential election
rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio, with interviewees making comments
about Barack Obama such as "he regards white people as trash".

Did people at a Palin rally really say that? *Because you know it's
not true, don't you? *Either people at the Palin rally didn't say it
and Al Jazeera was staging interviews using planted interviewees, or
the people they interviewed were gullible or liars themselves. *Do you
think a responsible news organization shows fools or liars making
false statements about a candidate for president of the US? * *Not
unless the point of the story is the ignorance of the public, which
would also be an anti-US message, but I think their message was far
more anti-US.

The
report received over 2 million views on YouTube[96] and elicited
comment by Colin Powell: "Those kind of images going out on Al
Jazeera are killing us."

Don't you agree that it's bad for the US, and unfairly bad, to
broadcast lies like that about what Obama believes?

[97] Following this the Washington Post ran
an op-ed,[98] claiming the news channel was deliberately encouraging
"anti-American sentiment overseas",[98]

What would you call it? *Isn't that what they were doing? *Unless they
were so stupid as to believe what the people at the Palin rally
alleged about Obama's views on white people.

which was criticized by Al
Jazeera as "a gratuitous and uninformed shot at Al Jazeera's
motives", as the report was just one of "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage".[97]"

Well of course AJ is going to complain. *No one, especialy a "news
network" likes to be criticized, and "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage" is a cliche. *That's what everyone says. *How
diverse was it? *Do they quote fools telling lies about Republicans
too? *Is that what makes it diverse? *I'll bet when corporate America
or big labor, or at least one of those two, makes stupid denials, you
recognize that they are stupid, but when AJ does it, you just assume
they're telling the truth about themselves. *How much AJ have you
watched anyhow that you can tell if the criticism of them is fair or
not? *Or maybe you like it when it's anti-US, so you don't even
notice.

D) Has it occurred to you that Al Jazeera might well be an enemy of
the US? *There are plenty of enemies of the US in the Arab countries.
Why do you trust *AJ*? *Which do you think is more effective,
screaming about how evil the US is, or trying to sound fair and
balanced while choosing stories that make the US look bad, both in the
US and even more so during their broadcasts and cablecasts and
satcasts abroad? *Do you understand how propaganda works?

E) We don't know how patriotic you are. * *Maybe you don't care about
A, B, C, or D.

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn TV
programmes? I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away in
our news.

harry wrote:
On Dec 27, 12:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Proudly, no.

Thought so. Drivel journalism. Watched by the brain dead.

An "Appeal to Authority" (i.e., "international awards") is a mighty poor
debating tool.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:26:41 -0500, wrote:


I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

I too have seen groups destroyed by people with their own agenda.

If everyone decided that all they had to do was put O.T. in front of
their post as their justification then imagine what this group could
become.

Political commentary
Reality TV
abortion arguments
BSDM
NAMBLA
ect.

Groups are destroy by having to filter to much content that
has no business being there in the first place.

There is another reason for OT: stuff in these forums; people with a common
interest discussing things outside that interest, rather like a bar, or *gasp*
a "forum". The problem I see with harry is that he never contributes anything
*ON* topic.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:24:33 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 27, 7:09*pm, Bubba wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

A) Do you think this might be biased? *Al Jazeera (AJ) has its own tv
station in the DC area, 24 hours a day, and they don't even mention
that. * Yeah, your url is ignorant or very biased.

B) Even in what you cite, there is only one example of one person 9
years ago trying to censor them. *Everyone else is just criticising
it. *Don't you know the difference?

C) the longest paragraph says (my comments interspersed):

On October 12, 2008 Al Jazeera broadcast interviews with people
attending a Sarah Palin 2008 United States presidential election
rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio, with interviewees making comments
about Barack Obama such as "he regards white people as trash".

Did people at a Palin rally really say that? *Because you know it's
not true, don't you? *Either people at the Palin rally didn't say it
and Al Jazeera was staging interviews using planted interviewees, or
the people they interviewed were gullible or liars themselves. *Do you
think a responsible news organization shows fools or liars making
false statements about a candidate for president of the US? * *Not
unless the point of the story is the ignorance of the public, which
would also be an anti-US message, but I think their message was far
more anti-US.

The
report received over 2 million views on YouTube[96] and elicited
comment by Colin Powell: "Those kind of images going out on Al
Jazeera are killing us."

Don't you agree that it's bad for the US, and unfairly bad, to
broadcast lies like that about what Obama believes?

[97] Following this the Washington Post ran
an op-ed,[98] claiming the news channel was deliberately encouraging
"anti-American sentiment overseas",[98]

What would you call it? *Isn't that what they were doing? *Unless they
were so stupid as to believe what the people at the Palin rally
alleged about Obama's views on white people.

which was criticized by Al
Jazeera as "a gratuitous and uninformed shot at Al Jazeera's
motives", as the report was just one of "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage".[97]"

Well of course AJ is going to complain. *No one, especialy a "news
network" likes to be criticized, and "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage" is a cliche. *That's what everyone says. *How
diverse was it? *Do they quote fools telling lies about Republicans
too? *Is that what makes it diverse? *I'll bet when corporate America
or big labor, or at least one of those two, makes stupid denials, you
recognize that they are stupid, but when AJ does it, you just assume
they're telling the truth about themselves. *How much AJ have you
watched anyhow that you can tell if the criticism of them is fair or
not? *Or maybe you like it when it's anti-US, so you don't even
notice.

D) Has it occurred to you that Al Jazeera might well be an enemy of
the US? *There are plenty of enemies of the US in the Arab countries.
Why do you trust *AJ*? *Which do you think is more effective,
screaming about how evil the US is, or trying to sound fair and
balanced while choosing stories that make the US look bad, both in the
US and even more so during their broadcasts and cablecasts and
satcasts abroad? *Do you understand how propaganda works?

E) We don't know how patriotic you are. * *Maybe you don't care about
A, B, C, or D.

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn TV
programmes? I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away in
our news.

A non-reply reply. But I give you credit for quoting all the
questions I asked that you didn't address, and all the arguments I
made that you didnt' even try to refute.

I think you left it clear that nothing in the URL you gave had
anything to do with the only sentence in your first post: "Who say
news isn't censored in America?"

On 12/27/2010 4:17 AM George spake thus:

On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:

Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

Can you be more specific? Which groups? When?

Sorry, but what you say sounds doubtful. First of all, the real killer
of Usenet is spam, not off-topic posts or even flame wars. The tsunami
flood of spam unleashed by Google's spam-portal implementation of their
"groups" is a real problem.

And while you might not like the off-topic stuff here and elsewhere,
this group still appears to be quite healthy. On-topic posts far
outnumber off-topic ones. Relevant questions about home repair are still
being asked and answered. I don't really see the problem.

Don't like off-topic threads (most conveniently marked with "OT")? Don't
read 'em.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On 12/27/2010 6:15 AM spake thus:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:17:18 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:

Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc. Al
Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to
*you* just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just
doesn't get the idea that there are other groups or places that are
appropriate forums for political discussion.

What he doesn't understand is this. By posting O.T. subject matter
he is taking away our choice. He assumes that what is important to him
is important to us. Our choice has always been dictated by choosing
what group we subscribe to and what group we do not subscribe to.
Now it seems that he believes he can make that choice for us.

His reasoning will be that you don't have to read the O.T. posts. If
everybody used that reasoning them why do we bother having 50000
different groups. There are political newsgroups that he could post
to. This poster has decided to not use them. Instead he wants to
dictate to us. We shouldn't have to filter him or anybody else who
decided to use home repair as their personal O.T. venting forum.

Oh, for chrissakes; how hard, really, is it *not* to read threads
clearly marked with "OT" if you're basically dead-set against such
things on principle? Are you somehow compelled to click on such
messages? If so, might I suggest that the problem is perhaps psychological.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On 12/27/2010 12:19 PM zzzzzzzzzz spake thus:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:26:41 -0500, wrote:

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just
doesn't get the idea that there are other groups or places that
are appropriate forums for political discussion.

I too have seen groups destroyed by people with their own agenda.

If everyone decided that all they had to do was put O.T. in front
of their post as their justification then imagine what this group
could become.

Political commentary Reality TV abortion arguments BSDM NAMBLA ect.

Groups are destroy by having to filter to much content that has no
business being there in the first place.

There is another reason for OT: stuff in these forums; people with a common
interest discussing things outside that interest, rather like a bar, or *gasp*
a "forum". The problem I see with harry is that he never contributes anything
*ON* topic.

Well, he does--a little here and there--but it's a fair criticism.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:42:32 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 4:17 AM George spake thus:

On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:

Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are appropriate
forums for political discussion.

Can you be more specific? Which groups? When?

alt.engineering.electrical has been destroyed by DimBulb and Roy Queerjano's
constant bull****.

Sorry, but what you say sounds doubtful. First of all, the real killer
of Usenet is spam, not off-topic posts or even flame wars. The tsunami
flood of spam unleashed by Google's spam-portal implementation of their
"groups" is a real problem.

Decent news servers filter all that out.

And while you might not like the off-topic stuff here and elsewhere,
this group still appears to be quite healthy. On-topic posts far
outnumber off-topic ones. Relevant questions about home repair are still
being asked and answered. I don't really see the problem.

Agreed. It's one of the better groups.

Don't like off-topic threads (most conveniently marked with "OT")? Don't
read 'em.

....and learn how to set up filters, if you're so offended. "OT:" in the
subject is pretty easy to find.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/27/2010 4:17 AM George spake thus:

On 12/27/2010 4:52 AM, harry wrote:

Groups are destroyed by people selling fake watches etc.
Al Jazeera has won international awards for journalism. Can the same
be said of Fox News?

Sorry, you only think that because your posts are important to *you*
just as those of someone selling fake watches are to them.

I have seen two groups destroyed by someone like you who just doesn't
get the idea that there are other groups or places that are
appropriate forums for political discussion.

Can you be more specific? Which groups? When?

Sorry, but what you say sounds doubtful. First of all, the real killer
of Usenet is spam, not off-topic posts or even flame wars. The tsunami
flood of spam unleashed by Google's spam-portal implementation of
their "groups" is a real problem.


Heh! Ever visit the HVAC newsgroup?

harry wrote:

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn TV
programmes? I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away in
our news.

On Mount Wilson there is a telescope that can magnify the most distant stars
up to twenty-four times the magnification of any previous telescope. This
remarkable instrument was unsurpassed in the world of astronomy until the
construction of the Mount Palomar telescope, an even more remarkable
instrument of magnification. Owing to advances and improvements in optical
technology, it is capable of magnifying the stars to four times the
magnification and resolution of the Mount Wilson telescope.

If you could somehow put the Mount Wilson telescope inside the Mount Palomar
telescope, you still wouldn't be able to detect my interest in newsy tidbits
from the UK.

On 12/27/2010 1:24 PM, harry wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

A) Do you think this might be biased? Al Jazeera (AJ) has its own tv
station in the DC area, 24 hours a day, and they don't even mention
that. Yeah, your url is ignorant or very biased.

B) Even in what you cite, there is only one example of one person 9
years ago trying to censor them. Everyone else is just criticising
it. Don't you know the difference?

C) the longest paragraph says (my comments interspersed):

On October 12, 2008 Al Jazeera broadcast interviews with people
attending a Sarah Palin 2008 United States presidential election
rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio, with interviewees making comments
about Barack Obama such as "he regards white people as trash".

Did people at a Palin rally really say that? Because you know it's
not true, don't you? Either people at the Palin rally didn't say it
and Al Jazeera was staging interviews using planted interviewees, or
the people they interviewed were gullible or liars themselves. Do you
think a responsible news organization shows fools or liars making
false statements about a candidate for president of the US? Not
unless the point of the story is the ignorance of the public, which
would also be an anti-US message, but I think their message was far
more anti-US.

The
report received over 2 million views on YouTube[96] and elicited
comment by Colin Powell: "Those kind of images going out on Al
Jazeera are killing us."

Don't you agree that it's bad for the US, and unfairly bad, to
broadcast lies like that about what Obama believes?

[97] Following this the Washington Post ran
an op-ed,[98] claiming the news channel was deliberately encouraging
"anti-American sentiment overseas",[98]

What would you call it? Isn't that what they were doing? Unless they
were so stupid as to believe what the people at the Palin rally
alleged about Obama's views on white people.

which was criticized by Al
Jazeera as "a gratuitous and uninformed shot at Al Jazeera's
motives", as the report was just one of "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage".[97]"

Well of course AJ is going to complain. No one, especialy a "news
network" likes to be criticized, and "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage" is a cliche. That's what everyone says. How
diverse was it? Do they quote fools telling lies about Republicans
too? Is that what makes it diverse? I'll bet when corporate America
or big labor, or at least one of those two, makes stupid denials, you
recognize that they are stupid, but when AJ does it, you just assume
they're telling the truth about themselves. How much AJ have you
watched anyhow that you can tell if the criticism of them is fair or
not? Or maybe you like it when it's anti-US, so you don't even
notice.

D) Has it occurred to you that Al Jazeera might well be an enemy of
the US? There are plenty of enemies of the US in the Arab countries.
Why do you trust *AJ*? Which do you think is more effective,
screaming about how evil the US is, or trying to sound fair and
balanced while choosing stories that make the US look bad, both in the
US and even more so during their broadcasts and cablecasts and
satcasts abroad? Do you understand how propaganda works?

E) We don't know how patriotic you are. Maybe you don't care about
A, B, C, or D.

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn TV
programmes? I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away in
our news.

You make a post and a responder makes a fairly detailed post with 5
different topics and you just blow them all off? You just trying to
raise the rabble?

On 12/27/2010 4:30 PM Patrick Karl spake thus:

You make a post and a responder makes a fairly detailed post with 5
different topics and you just blow them all off? You just trying to
raise the rabble?

That should be "rouse the rabble". Let's get our cliches right.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On 12/27/2010 4:25 PM HeyBub spake thus:

harry wrote:

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn
TV programmes? I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away
in our news.

On Mount Wilson there is a telescope that can magnify the most distant stars
up to twenty-four times the magnification of any previous telescope. This
remarkable instrument was unsurpassed in the world of astronomy until the
construction of the Mount Palomar telescope, an even more remarkable
instrument of magnification. Owing to advances and improvements in optical
technology, it is capable of magnifying the stars to four times the
magnification and resolution of the Mount Wilson telescope.

If you could somehow put the Mount Wilson telescope inside the Mount Palomar
telescope, you still wouldn't be able to detect my interest in newsy tidbits
from the UK.

Really, Bub, I coulda saved you a lot of typing there. You shoulda just
written "I'm a typical America-first know-nothing xenophobe". See how
much easier that is? (Well, maybe not as colorful ...)


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Dec 28, 12:25*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. *Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn TV
programmes? * I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away in
our news.

On Mount Wilson there is a telescope that can magnify the most distant stars
up to twenty-four times the magnification of any previous telescope. This
remarkable instrument was unsurpassed in the world of astronomy until the
construction of the Mount Palomar telescope, an even more remarkable
instrument of magnification. Owing to advances and improvements in optical
technology, it is capable of magnifying the stars to four times the
magnification and resolution of the Mount Wilson telescope.

If you could somehow put the Mount Wilson telescope inside the Mount Palomar
telescope, you still wouldn't be able to detect my interest in newsy tidbits
from the UK.

We invented reflecting telescopes you dope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_reflector

I just saw the explanation on TV about why Palin is so popular in
America. Apparently she is the living proof that you can be dumb in
America and still make loadsa money.
Probably one of the few countries where this is possible.

On Dec 28, 12:30*am, Patrick Karl wrote:
On 12/27/2010 1:24 PM, harry wrote:





On Dec 27, 7:09 pm, *wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

A) Do you think this might be biased? *Al Jazeera (AJ) has its own tv
station in the DC area, 24 hours a day, and they don't even mention
that. * Yeah, your url is ignorant or very biased.

B) Even in what you cite, there is only one example of one person 9
years ago trying to censor them. *Everyone else is just criticising
it. *Don't you know the difference?

C) the longest paragraph says (my comments interspersed):

On October 12, 2008 Al Jazeera broadcast interviews with people
attending a Sarah Palin 2008 United States presidential election
rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio, with interviewees making comments
about Barack Obama such as "he regards white people as trash".

Did people at a Palin rally really say that? *Because you know it's
not true, don't you? *Either people at the Palin rally didn't say it
and Al Jazeera was staging interviews using planted interviewees, or
the people they interviewed were gullible or liars themselves. *Do you
think a responsible news organization shows fools or liars making
false statements about a candidate for president of the US? * *Not
unless the point of the story is the ignorance of the public, which
would also be an anti-US message, but I think their message was far
more anti-US.

The
report received over 2 million views on YouTube[96] and elicited
comment by Colin Powell: "Those kind of images going out on Al
Jazeera are killing us."

Don't you agree that it's bad for the US, and unfairly bad, to
broadcast lies like that about what Obama believes?

[97] Following this the Washington Post ran
an op-ed,[98] claiming the news channel was deliberately encouraging
"anti-American sentiment overseas",[98]

What would you call it? *Isn't that what they were doing? *Unless they
were so stupid as to believe what the people at the Palin rally
alleged about Obama's views on white people.

which was criticized by Al
Jazeera as "a gratuitous and uninformed shot at Al Jazeera's
motives", as the report was just one of "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage".[97]"

Well of course AJ is going to complain. *No one, especialy a "news
network" likes to be criticized, and "hundreds of hours of
diverse coverage" is a cliche. *That's what everyone says. *How
diverse was it? *Do they quote fools telling lies about Republicans
too? *Is that what makes it diverse? *I'll bet when corporate America
or big labor, or at least one of those two, makes stupid denials, you
recognize that they are stupid, but when AJ does it, you just assume
they're telling the truth about themselves. *How much AJ have you
watched anyhow that you can tell if the criticism of them is fair or
not? *Or maybe you like it when it's anti-US, so you don't even
notice.

D) Has it occurred to you that Al Jazeera might well be an enemy of
the US? *There are plenty of enemies of the US in the Arab countries..
Why do you trust *AJ*? *Which do you think is more effective,
screaming about how evil the US is, or trying to sound fair and
balanced while choosing stories that make the US look bad, both in the
US and even more so during their broadcasts and cablecasts and
satcasts abroad? *Do you understand how propaganda works?

E) We don't know how patriotic you are. * *Maybe you don't care about
A, B, C, or D.

Well you need to watch it to find out if it's true. *Have you been
watching it? (Doesn't sound like it.) Or any of the other foriegn TV
programmes? * I find stuff on it about the UK that is buried away in
our news.

You make a post and a responder makes a fairly detailed post with 5
different topics and you just blow them all off? *You just trying to
raise the rabble?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When he comes out with irrelevant drivel, then yes.
He has a great penchant for changing the subject and bringing in red
herrings when cornered.

harry wrote:
I just saw the explanation on TV about why Palin is so popular in
America. Apparently she is the living proof that you can be dumb in
America and still make loadsa money.
Probably one of the few countries where this is possible.

Yep. Consider Michael Jackson. Where else could a poor black boy grow up to
be a rich white man and marry Elvis Presley's daughter?

Is America a great country, or what!

On Dec 28, 12:38*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
I just saw the explanation on TV about why Palin is so popular in
America. Apparently she is the living proof that you can be dumb in
America and still make loadsa money.
Probably one of the few countries where this is possible.

Yep. Consider Michael Jackson. Where else could a poor black boy grow up to
be a rich white man and marry Elvis Presley's daughter?

Is America a great country, or what!

It has to be said, nowhere else I can think of.
Thought they're pretty kinky in Brasil.............or Thailand.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:03:58 -0500, George wrote:

On 12/26/2010 4:20 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/26/2010 12:17 PM spake thus:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:24:08 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States_2

Who say news isn't censored in America?

Occasional OT posts are one thing. Continuous are another.
Many groups have been destroyed by such activity. With or without the
use of "OT" in the subject line.

Please take your continuous political commentary to.......

alt.politics
alt.politics.usa
uk.politics.misc

....or the hundred or so more appropriate newsgroups.

While I guess I understand your frustration, I'm here to tell you that
your complaint has been registered but will have no effect.

Apparently, lots of us here *like* our off-topic political discussions,
and will continue to participate in them (myself included).

Maybe you can get whoever setup this one newsgroup for you to help you
set up one or a few of the others that were especially created for
political discussion?

Maybe you can go to one of the political groups and talk about home repair? Or
maybe learn how to kill a thread (I know, "OT:" is *really* hard to detect).

You see most of us *like* the idea of a sense of order and that is why
all of those groups were created.

Order? Usenet? You *are* delusional.

Just imagine going into your favorite store and finding say all of the
nails mixed into one bin. When you ask the owner he replies that he is
just too lazy to have them sorted so it is much easier for him to dump
them into one bin.

No, if I don't like the way a store is run, rather than fighting with all the
rest of the customers, I simply go to another store. I suggest you do the
same.

geez, you can whine about others but you can't even trim your posts