The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Lowbrow! Was it influenced by some other country, or is it a monster all of its own making? Personally I see it as the one thing that's truly shameful about this country. Be it through the printed press or television networks, they all seem to sensationalise for pure profit. Papers print stories based on little or no fact, and very rarely have libel action taken against them.
TV corporations purposely hype up stories, hoping that they can stir people into contacting them, then advertise their premium rate services. As a further sour note, this is also true of publicly funded corporations, who seem just as willing to take part in these unsavoury antics. All this before you even begin looking at the role private companies play in ripping people off.
I’m not saying propaganda is always wrong, as it has been proven an asset during wartime, although it does raise one startling question; are we the enemy? Is big business well aware that people are at their most vulnerable (and profitable) when they are scared and confused, therefore this constant barrage of speculation is there to serve a purpose.
Have you every asked yourself why the media is so quiet during the late summer months, when all of our members of parliament are on holiday? I don’t for a second believe in a mass conspiracy, in fact I’m almost certain the current climate has been created by the everyday people, but isn’t it wrong for those with power to prey on this insecurity and weakness?
TV corporations purposely hype up stories, hoping that they can stir people into contacting them, then advertise their premium rate services. As a further sour note, this is also true of publicly funded corporations, who seem just as willing to take part in these unsavoury antics. All this before you even begin looking at the role private companies play in ripping people off.
I’m not saying propaganda is always wrong, as it has been proven an asset during wartime, although it does raise one startling question; are we the enemy? Is big business well aware that people are at their most vulnerable (and profitable) when they are scared and confused, therefore this constant barrage of speculation is there to serve a purpose.
Have you every asked yourself why the media is so quiet during the late summer months, when all of our members of parliament are on holiday? I don’t for a second believe in a mass conspiracy, in fact I’m almost certain the current climate has been created by the everyday people, but isn’t it wrong for those with power to prey on this insecurity and weakness?
Page:
spoonbeast wrote:
> Yeah the media is sensationlist, gutter trash, blow things out of
> proportion and i don't care. Why? Because i always take my news
> and look listen to whats been said and filter out the crap that
> they say.
Same here, but normally you can see how various sectors in Britain where once great, although I fail to see this with our media
> Yeah the media is sensationlist, gutter trash, blow things out of
> proportion and i don't care. Why? Because i always take my news
> and look listen to whats been said and filter out the crap that
> they say.
Same here, but normally you can see how various sectors in Britain where once great, although I fail to see this with our media
Yeah the media is sensationlist, gutter trash, blow things out of proportion and i don't care. Why? Because i always take my news and look listen to whats been said and filter out the crap that they say.
Hell, i read between the lines and i make my opinion. Perhaps life isn't so exciting anymore. A point that i seem to (perhaps insensitively) couldn't care about is the hype and sadnesses of british soldiers getting killed abroad fighting in a war. Excuse me, but when has there been a war where people haven't died in battle or in a fight? The numbers are considerably smaller compared to other wars and with modern warfare, it would have been higher. Granted, i might have cared more if it was my child getting killed, but as an observer i can't make that connection or feeling, merely sympathise.
Hell, i read between the lines and i make my opinion. Perhaps life isn't so exciting anymore. A point that i seem to (perhaps insensitively) couldn't care about is the hype and sadnesses of british soldiers getting killed abroad fighting in a war. Excuse me, but when has there been a war where people haven't died in battle or in a fight? The numbers are considerably smaller compared to other wars and with modern warfare, it would have been higher. Granted, i might have cared more if it was my child getting killed, but as an observer i can't make that connection or feeling, merely sympathise.
Silent Thunder wrote:
> A question I'd like to ask of you though is why does it appear
> you have got something against politicans giving their opinions
> on news stories anyway? Surely in a lot of cases they can give a
> well informed opinion on subjects, which can help other people
> develop their opinion. That can't be a bad thing?
Boris Johnson (ok stupid example), but there are people such as Ken Livingstone, who should know better. Also I'm not saying it's all bad; when Cameron was first elected leader of the Tories, and was busy trying to work out what everyone wanted to hear, David Davis was making well informed and even helpful comments on situations.
> The media (in this case the Independent)! Without the
> media being a watchdog on the government the public probably
> wouldn't know what's illegal and what's not. I hate to
> stereotype people but not a lot of people take a strong interest
> in politics, the voter turnout is evidence to this, and so
> wouldn't otherwise know what the government was up to without
> the media focusing on exactly what they're doing.
Well again, it's not all bad. The independent are one of the few newspapers that print substantiated articles, but how many people read broadsheets (even though there is a compact independent). Most lap up what the tabloids print, and this is the majority. As a footnote, the Evening Standard is pretty amusing read for the journey home.
> I mean it almost sounds as if you're saying this 'eastern
> European's' voice doesn't count for anything just because of
> where they originate from, which I hope you're not! After all
> anyone living in the UK is the member of public, in my opinion,
> and so their voice counts as much as the next person.
Living legally you mean right? Maybe you don't live in an area with a large eastern european majority, but most seem pretty apathetic and usually give answers along the line of I don't care, to any political question. I've met very intelligent, hard working ukrainians etc, but this hasn't been a regular occurrence. It is a different subject but immigration is a well documented problem, although as soon as anyone tries to discuss it, they are automatically branded a racist (which I hope you weren’t alluding to).
> A question I'd like to ask of you though is why does it appear
> you have got something against politicans giving their opinions
> on news stories anyway? Surely in a lot of cases they can give a
> well informed opinion on subjects, which can help other people
> develop their opinion. That can't be a bad thing?
Boris Johnson (ok stupid example), but there are people such as Ken Livingstone, who should know better. Also I'm not saying it's all bad; when Cameron was first elected leader of the Tories, and was busy trying to work out what everyone wanted to hear, David Davis was making well informed and even helpful comments on situations.
> The media (in this case the Independent)! Without the
> media being a watchdog on the government the public probably
> wouldn't know what's illegal and what's not. I hate to
> stereotype people but not a lot of people take a strong interest
> in politics, the voter turnout is evidence to this, and so
> wouldn't otherwise know what the government was up to without
> the media focusing on exactly what they're doing.
Well again, it's not all bad. The independent are one of the few newspapers that print substantiated articles, but how many people read broadsheets (even though there is a compact independent). Most lap up what the tabloids print, and this is the majority. As a footnote, the Evening Standard is pretty amusing read for the journey home.
> I mean it almost sounds as if you're saying this 'eastern
> European's' voice doesn't count for anything just because of
> where they originate from, which I hope you're not! After all
> anyone living in the UK is the member of public, in my opinion,
> and so their voice counts as much as the next person.
Living legally you mean right? Maybe you don't live in an area with a large eastern european majority, but most seem pretty apathetic and usually give answers along the line of I don't care, to any political question. I've met very intelligent, hard working ukrainians etc, but this hasn't been a regular occurrence. It is a different subject but immigration is a well documented problem, although as soon as anyone tries to discuss it, they are automatically branded a racist (which I hope you weren’t alluding to).
Marzman wrote:
> My point (however sarcastic) wasn’t that only politicians
> make statements and give their opinions, it was that too many
> do.
Well the UK is a representative democracy so you'd expect this really: we elect MPs to voice our opinions. Admitedly this doesn't always happen obviously, but that's how it is meant to work so that's why the media turn to the relevant MPs when news stories develop.
And even so I still don't think that many politicans make statements and give their opinions on news, unless you're just talking about recently but that's only because of the party conferences which is the main news. But otherwise I think the media likes to concentrate on gathering the public's view on news because the media have the stereotypical view that MPs are totally out of touch with 'real people'.
A question I'd like to ask of you though is why does it appear you have got something against politicans giving their opinions on news stories anyway? Surely in a lot of cases they can give a well informed opinion on subjects, which can help other people develop their opinion. That can't be a bad thing?
> How many stupid stories do we get about plans for
> changing this, or a radical shake-up of that, and when you look
> into them they’re of very little substance.
I'd admit there is a lot of purely symbolic legislation being passed. For example Blair's government passed a rediculous amount of law and order policies, which were only passed so the crime figures would be in the government's favour. However, what is responsible for revealing that is what the government is doing? The media (in this case the Independent)! Without the media being a watchdog on the government the public probably wouldn't know what's illegal and what's not. I hate to stereotype people but not a lot of people take a strong interest in politics, the voter turnout is evidence to this, and so wouldn't otherwise know what the government was up to without the media focusing on exactly what they're doing.
> And what members of
> the public are you talking about? When they pull over some
> random eastern European on the street, who can barely understand
> the question, let alone give an answer.
I don't see the relevance in you bringing up a 'random eastern European'. I don't know what news you watch but usually the media atleast attempt to get a good representation of the British public, whether this be a 'random eastern European' or not. I mean it almost sounds as if you're saying this 'eastern European's' voice doesn't count for anything just because of where they originate from, which I hope you're not! After all anyone living in the UK is the member of public, in my opinion, and so their voice counts as much as the next person.
> My point (however sarcastic) wasn’t that only politicians
> make statements and give their opinions, it was that too many
> do.
Well the UK is a representative democracy so you'd expect this really: we elect MPs to voice our opinions. Admitedly this doesn't always happen obviously, but that's how it is meant to work so that's why the media turn to the relevant MPs when news stories develop.
And even so I still don't think that many politicans make statements and give their opinions on news, unless you're just talking about recently but that's only because of the party conferences which is the main news. But otherwise I think the media likes to concentrate on gathering the public's view on news because the media have the stereotypical view that MPs are totally out of touch with 'real people'.
A question I'd like to ask of you though is why does it appear you have got something against politicans giving their opinions on news stories anyway? Surely in a lot of cases they can give a well informed opinion on subjects, which can help other people develop their opinion. That can't be a bad thing?
> How many stupid stories do we get about plans for
> changing this, or a radical shake-up of that, and when you look
> into them they’re of very little substance.
I'd admit there is a lot of purely symbolic legislation being passed. For example Blair's government passed a rediculous amount of law and order policies, which were only passed so the crime figures would be in the government's favour. However, what is responsible for revealing that is what the government is doing? The media (in this case the Independent)! Without the media being a watchdog on the government the public probably wouldn't know what's illegal and what's not. I hate to stereotype people but not a lot of people take a strong interest in politics, the voter turnout is evidence to this, and so wouldn't otherwise know what the government was up to without the media focusing on exactly what they're doing.
> And what members of
> the public are you talking about? When they pull over some
> random eastern European on the street, who can barely understand
> the question, let alone give an answer.
I don't see the relevance in you bringing up a 'random eastern European'. I don't know what news you watch but usually the media atleast attempt to get a good representation of the British public, whether this be a 'random eastern European' or not. I mean it almost sounds as if you're saying this 'eastern European's' voice doesn't count for anything just because of where they originate from, which I hope you're not! After all anyone living in the UK is the member of public, in my opinion, and so their voice counts as much as the next person.
Garin wrote:
> And all very interesting, but entirely irrelevant to my question
> which you still havent answered.
Why did the stock and consumer spending take a hit after the 7/7 bombings? Maybe because the tube network was closed for a good while after, keeping shoppers away, and don’t forget London is the nations financial center so trading would be affected. Also although I’m no Richard Branson, but having been importing items and selling them on ebay for a while, I noticed how on July 7th ’05 people kept on buying items.
> Here is what you're missing, I am not sitting smug with my
> formed hypothesis. I am simply repeating what has been
> established and tracked by far greater minds than I. Even a
> simple bit of research will reveal a world of information about
> this. Consumer confidence is tracked and even used in economic
> planning. Its a fairly well understood subject, ie we know what
> makes people spend and make whats them hoard their money.
Finally, we are proverbially singing from the same hymn sheet. Your not coming up with any new ideas, your just repeating those of others, which is the difference between being told I mean taught something and actually learning through experience. Your right about the greater minds, but someone on wiki has summed a certain theory beautifully; The premise that markets unfold in recognizable patterns contradicts the efficient market hypothesis, which says that prices cannot be predicted from market data such as moving averages and volume. By this reasoning, if successful market forecasts were possible, investors would buy (or sell) when the method predicted a price increase (or decrease), to the point that prices would rise (or fall) immediately, thus destroying the profitability and predictive power of the method. In efficient markets, knowledge of the Elliott wave principle among investors would lead to the disappearance of the very patterns they tried to anticipate, rendering the method useless
> So let me summarise... You made something up and you dont have
> any information to back it up. End of discussion I think.
It’s right in front of you all the time. In the floods earlier this year people panic brought water, depleting supplies, whilst inflating the price of those that where left. These occurrences are far more common than suicide attacks (in Britain) or wars, former royals dieing or stock crashes, yet this is all the evidence you’ve provided. It seems your only real argument is my ignorance, which is pointless as there is no way of proving/disproving either way in a forum, only in a real life face to face meeting.
> And all very interesting, but entirely irrelevant to my question
> which you still havent answered.
Why did the stock and consumer spending take a hit after the 7/7 bombings? Maybe because the tube network was closed for a good while after, keeping shoppers away, and don’t forget London is the nations financial center so trading would be affected. Also although I’m no Richard Branson, but having been importing items and selling them on ebay for a while, I noticed how on July 7th ’05 people kept on buying items.
> Here is what you're missing, I am not sitting smug with my
> formed hypothesis. I am simply repeating what has been
> established and tracked by far greater minds than I. Even a
> simple bit of research will reveal a world of information about
> this. Consumer confidence is tracked and even used in economic
> planning. Its a fairly well understood subject, ie we know what
> makes people spend and make whats them hoard their money.
Finally, we are proverbially singing from the same hymn sheet. Your not coming up with any new ideas, your just repeating those of others, which is the difference between being told I mean taught something and actually learning through experience. Your right about the greater minds, but someone on wiki has summed a certain theory beautifully; The premise that markets unfold in recognizable patterns contradicts the efficient market hypothesis, which says that prices cannot be predicted from market data such as moving averages and volume. By this reasoning, if successful market forecasts were possible, investors would buy (or sell) when the method predicted a price increase (or decrease), to the point that prices would rise (or fall) immediately, thus destroying the profitability and predictive power of the method. In efficient markets, knowledge of the Elliott wave principle among investors would lead to the disappearance of the very patterns they tried to anticipate, rendering the method useless
> So let me summarise... You made something up and you dont have
> any information to back it up. End of discussion I think.
It’s right in front of you all the time. In the floods earlier this year people panic brought water, depleting supplies, whilst inflating the price of those that where left. These occurrences are far more common than suicide attacks (in Britain) or wars, former royals dieing or stock crashes, yet this is all the evidence you’ve provided. It seems your only real argument is my ignorance, which is pointless as there is no way of proving/disproving either way in a forum, only in a real life face to face meeting.
Marzman wrote:
> Garin, I did have an answer to your question, yet life isn’t a
> business model and some things are more important. I mean, can
> you hear yourself; even the death of Diana managed to dim
> consumer spending. Is that all you care about, how the economy
> is doing, because you seem to be placing a lot of faith in
> figures when they can’t tell you everything.
And all very interesting, but entirely irrelevant to my question which you still havent answered.
> What about
> context, remembering how things actually unfolded rather than
> just sitting there all smug, because you’ve formed your
> hypothesis after an event.
Here is what you're missing, I am not sitting smug with my formed hypothesis. I am simply repeating what has been established and tracked by far greater minds than I. Even a simple bit of research will reveal a world of information about this. Consumer confidence is tracked and even used in economic planning. Its a fairly well understood subject, ie we know what makes people spend and make whats them hoard their money.
> With that semi-rant I didn’t even get on to statistics, probably
> one of the most eye opening subjects, as it shows you how figures
> can be bent to back up just about anything. The truth of the
> matter is that a lot of what we are talking about are false
> economies, which have nothing to do with real life. Stock
> markets can be predicted, human behaviour cannot. In saying
> that if I had to choose between the rigid business world or the
> infinite possibilities people hold, I’d choose the latter any
> day.
So let me summarise... You made something up and you dont have any information to back it up? I dont think the discussion has anywhere left to go. So we can agree to disagree I guess. :)
> Garin, I did have an answer to your question, yet life isn’t a
> business model and some things are more important. I mean, can
> you hear yourself; even the death of Diana managed to dim
> consumer spending. Is that all you care about, how the economy
> is doing, because you seem to be placing a lot of faith in
> figures when they can’t tell you everything.
And all very interesting, but entirely irrelevant to my question which you still havent answered.
> What about
> context, remembering how things actually unfolded rather than
> just sitting there all smug, because you’ve formed your
> hypothesis after an event.
Here is what you're missing, I am not sitting smug with my formed hypothesis. I am simply repeating what has been established and tracked by far greater minds than I. Even a simple bit of research will reveal a world of information about this. Consumer confidence is tracked and even used in economic planning. Its a fairly well understood subject, ie we know what makes people spend and make whats them hoard their money.
> With that semi-rant I didn’t even get on to statistics, probably
> one of the most eye opening subjects, as it shows you how figures
> can be bent to back up just about anything. The truth of the
> matter is that a lot of what we are talking about are false
> economies, which have nothing to do with real life. Stock
> markets can be predicted, human behaviour cannot. In saying
> that if I had to choose between the rigid business world or the
> infinite possibilities people hold, I’d choose the latter any
> day.
So let me summarise... You made something up and you dont have any information to back it up? I dont think the discussion has anywhere left to go. So we can agree to disagree I guess. :)
Silent Thunder wrote:
> Of course much of the news is based on politics, a lot of daily
> life goes straight back to politics! Everything we do in life to
> some extent is governed by politicans making decisions so it's
> only natural for the media to show the links from new stories to
> politics, whether it's because a particular policy is being acted
> upon or whether a politican is giving their opinion on an event
> in the news. Members of the public also get involved in the news
> too, it's not like there's a complete censorship where only
> politicans can make statements and give their opinions on
> things!
My point (however sarcastic) wasn’t that only politicians make statements and give their opinions, it was that too many do. How many stupid stories do we get about plans for changing this, or a radical shake-up of that, and when you look into them they’re of very little substance. And what members of the public are you talking about? When they pull over some random eastern European on the street, who can barely understand the question, let alone give an answer.
Garin, I did have an answer to your question, yet life isn’t a business model and some things are more important. I mean, can you hear yourself; even the death of Diana managed to dim consumer spending. Is that all you care about, how the economy is doing, because you seem to be placing a lot of faith in figures when they can’t tell you everything. What about context, remembering how things actually unfolded rather than just sitting there all smug, because you’ve formed your hypothesis after an event.
With that semi-rant I didn’t even get on to statistics, probably one of the most eye opening subjects, as it shows you how figures can be bent to back up just about anything. The truth of the matter is that a lot of what we are talking about are false economies, which have nothing to do with real life. Stock markets can be predicted, human behaviour cannot. In saying that if I had to choose between the rigid business world or the infinite possibilities people hold, I’d choose the latter any day.
> Of course much of the news is based on politics, a lot of daily
> life goes straight back to politics! Everything we do in life to
> some extent is governed by politicans making decisions so it's
> only natural for the media to show the links from new stories to
> politics, whether it's because a particular policy is being acted
> upon or whether a politican is giving their opinion on an event
> in the news. Members of the public also get involved in the news
> too, it's not like there's a complete censorship where only
> politicans can make statements and give their opinions on
> things!
My point (however sarcastic) wasn’t that only politicians make statements and give their opinions, it was that too many do. How many stupid stories do we get about plans for changing this, or a radical shake-up of that, and when you look into them they’re of very little substance. And what members of the public are you talking about? When they pull over some random eastern European on the street, who can barely understand the question, let alone give an answer.
Garin, I did have an answer to your question, yet life isn’t a business model and some things are more important. I mean, can you hear yourself; even the death of Diana managed to dim consumer spending. Is that all you care about, how the economy is doing, because you seem to be placing a lot of faith in figures when they can’t tell you everything. What about context, remembering how things actually unfolded rather than just sitting there all smug, because you’ve formed your hypothesis after an event.
With that semi-rant I didn’t even get on to statistics, probably one of the most eye opening subjects, as it shows you how figures can be bent to back up just about anything. The truth of the matter is that a lot of what we are talking about are false economies, which have nothing to do with real life. Stock markets can be predicted, human behaviour cannot. In saying that if I had to choose between the rigid business world or the infinite possibilities people hold, I’d choose the latter any day.
Marzman wrote:
> Garin, are you seriously using a (so far) once in a lifetime
> event, like the London bombings, as evidence for a conversation
> based on generalisations? Most of us where checking if our
> loved ones where ok, and I personally had a family member
> heading up to Kings cross, a good friend heading down and I
> actually knew one person who died during that explosion…
You have no answer to my question then?. And if you dont like the london bombings, feel free to substitute it with any event you like that has created fear and uncertainty. Wars, stock market crashes, geez even the death of diana managed to dim consumer spending.
> So to de-personalise this; I’d use the example of this summers
> dip in the stock market. Uncertainty in the banking sector
> caused instability in the share market, but this only affected
> everyday people whom where with the Northern Rock, due to their
> own fears. So with this uncertainty why hasn’t consumer
> spending been dented? People are just as confident taking out
> credit against the advice of others. So where is this
> well-established economic theory being played out?
Sorry, I just dont see the point in answering any of that. You've just declared that consumer spending hasnt been dented yet we have no figures. You dont track trends over a matter of days/weeks.
The reality is, you made the assertion that fear and instability promoted consumer spending. Asking me to prove the opposite doesnt make your assertion anymore valid.
> Garin, are you seriously using a (so far) once in a lifetime
> event, like the London bombings, as evidence for a conversation
> based on generalisations? Most of us where checking if our
> loved ones where ok, and I personally had a family member
> heading up to Kings cross, a good friend heading down and I
> actually knew one person who died during that explosion…
You have no answer to my question then?. And if you dont like the london bombings, feel free to substitute it with any event you like that has created fear and uncertainty. Wars, stock market crashes, geez even the death of diana managed to dim consumer spending.
> So to de-personalise this; I’d use the example of this summers
> dip in the stock market. Uncertainty in the banking sector
> caused instability in the share market, but this only affected
> everyday people whom where with the Northern Rock, due to their
> own fears. So with this uncertainty why hasn’t consumer
> spending been dented? People are just as confident taking out
> credit against the advice of others. So where is this
> well-established economic theory being played out?
Sorry, I just dont see the point in answering any of that. You've just declared that consumer spending hasnt been dented yet we have no figures. You dont track trends over a matter of days/weeks.
The reality is, you made the assertion that fear and instability promoted consumer spending. Asking me to prove the opposite doesnt make your assertion anymore valid.
Marzman wrote:
> That’s however a very good point on how much of our news is
> based on politics. I sometimes forget the un-elected still have
> a voice, and that they're all sorts of think tanks which also
> like to make a lot of noise, but I guess that our democracy for
> you. :/
Of course much of the news is based on politics, a lot of daily life goes straight back to politics! Everything we do in life to some extent is governed by politicans making decisions so it's only natural for the media to show the links from new stories to politics, whether it's because a particular policy is being acted upon or whether a politican is giving their opinion on an event in the news. Members of the public also get involved in the news too, it's not like there's a complete censorship where only politicans can make statements and give their opinions on things!
> That’s however a very good point on how much of our news is
> based on politics. I sometimes forget the un-elected still have
> a voice, and that they're all sorts of think tanks which also
> like to make a lot of noise, but I guess that our democracy for
> you. :/
Of course much of the news is based on politics, a lot of daily life goes straight back to politics! Everything we do in life to some extent is governed by politicans making decisions so it's only natural for the media to show the links from new stories to politics, whether it's because a particular policy is being acted upon or whether a politican is giving their opinion on an event in the news. Members of the public also get involved in the news too, it's not like there's a complete censorship where only politicans can make statements and give their opinions on things!
iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> Sorry you seem to be provoked I did not hope that you would take
> my jovial posting seriously.
>
> I have sometimes seen news presenters tap their papers on the
> desk and say something like "and that is all the news this
> lunch time so we are leaving you early". Followed then by
> some 10 minute cam corder diary about how long they have been
> collecting postage gnomes or a 5 minute cartoon.
>
> Was your last comment about the Madeline thing?
I wasn’t provoked, and i also apologise if that’s how I came across. My final comment was mainly about the two girls that where murdered by Ian Huntley (annoying how the murderer becomes better known than the victims), and how initially the search for them drew some comparisons with the Madeline story, yes.
Garin, are you seriously using a (so far) once in a lifetime event, like the London bombings, as evidence for a conversation based on generalisations? Most of us where checking if our loved ones where ok, and I personally had a family member heading up to Kings cross, a good friend heading down and I actually knew one person who died during that explosion…
So to de-personalise this; I’d use the example of this summers dip in the stock market. Uncertainty in the banking sector caused instability in the share market, but this only affected everyday people whom where with the Northern Rock, due to their own fears. So with this uncertainty why hasn’t consumer spending been dented? People are just as confident taking out credit against the advice of others. So where is this well-established economic theory being played out?
> Sorry you seem to be provoked I did not hope that you would take
> my jovial posting seriously.
>
> I have sometimes seen news presenters tap their papers on the
> desk and say something like "and that is all the news this
> lunch time so we are leaving you early". Followed then by
> some 10 minute cam corder diary about how long they have been
> collecting postage gnomes or a 5 minute cartoon.
>
> Was your last comment about the Madeline thing?
I wasn’t provoked, and i also apologise if that’s how I came across. My final comment was mainly about the two girls that where murdered by Ian Huntley (annoying how the murderer becomes better known than the victims), and how initially the search for them drew some comparisons with the Madeline story, yes.
Garin, are you seriously using a (so far) once in a lifetime event, like the London bombings, as evidence for a conversation based on generalisations? Most of us where checking if our loved ones where ok, and I personally had a family member heading up to Kings cross, a good friend heading down and I actually knew one person who died during that explosion…
So to de-personalise this; I’d use the example of this summers dip in the stock market. Uncertainty in the banking sector caused instability in the share market, but this only affected everyday people whom where with the Northern Rock, due to their own fears. So with this uncertainty why hasn’t consumer spending been dented? People are just as confident taking out credit against the advice of others. So where is this well-established economic theory being played out?
Page: