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 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 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, 12:17*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.

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 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.

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?"

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 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.

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, 12:25*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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 01:35:53 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

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

Gee, harry, I didn't know you were that old!

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 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.