The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask a few questions:
1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do you think the monarchy has in the UK?
2) Do you think that (BTInternet / BT / Any other company) have a monopoly on the internet in the UK, and have the ability to censor material that UK surfers receive?
3) Do you think that the BBC or other news channels censor news that is shown in the UK?
I've written this because I'm getting annoyed by a guy at "http://www.ffaddicts.com/ cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ffaddict/ubb6/ ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=000015;counterhit=yes"
That's also why I've put this in the Nintendo forum, since I'm completely fed up with PS2 fanboys coming along and telling me how bad the GC is.
You can post answers here, or there, or anywhere else, or not at all.
Isn't this fun?
1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do you think the monarchy has in the UK?
2) Do you think that (BTInternet / BT / Any other company) have a monopoly on the internet in the UK, and have the ability to censor material that UK surfers receive?
3) Do you think that the BBC or other news channels censor news that is shown in the UK?
I've written this because I'm getting annoyed by a guy at "http://www.ffaddicts.com/ cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ffaddict/ubb6/ ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=000015;counterhit=yes"
That's also why I've put this in the Nintendo forum, since I'm completely fed up with PS2 fanboys coming along and telling me how bad the GC is.
You can post answers here, or there, or anywhere else, or not at all.
Isn't this fun?
Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask a few questions:
1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do you think the monarchy has in the UK?
2) Do you think that (BTInternet / BT / Any other company) have a monopoly on the internet in the UK, and have the ability to censor material that UK surfers receive?
3) Do you think that the BBC or other news channels censor news that is shown in the UK?
I've written this because I'm getting annoyed by a guy at "http://www.ffaddicts.com/ cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ffaddict/ubb6/ ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=000015;counterhit=yes"
That's also why I've put this in the Nintendo forum, since I'm completely fed up with PS2 fanboys coming along and telling me how bad the GC is.
You can post answers here, or there, or anywhere else, or not at all.
Isn't this fun?
1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do you think the monarchy has in the UK?
2) Do you think that (BTInternet / BT / Any other company) have a monopoly on the internet in the UK, and have the ability to censor material that UK surfers receive?
3) Do you think that the BBC or other news channels censor news that is shown in the UK?
I've written this because I'm getting annoyed by a guy at "http://www.ffaddicts.com/ cgi-sys/cgiwrap/ffaddict/ubb6/ ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=000015;counterhit=yes"
That's also why I've put this in the Nintendo forum, since I'm completely fed up with PS2 fanboys coming along and telling me how bad the GC is.
You can post answers here, or there, or anywhere else, or not at all.
Isn't this fun?
Oh my god, that forum is full of the most brain dead idiots around. They perfectly fit the #sony fanboy stereotype:
Only games with violence are good
All Nintendo games are for kids and are crap
Better grahpics means its a much better game
Oh and also, there all dumb, arrogant Americans putting down every other country in the world! If you didn't have to register to use that site I would put them in their place..
Only games with violence are good
All Nintendo games are for kids and are crap
Better grahpics means its a much better game
Oh and also, there all dumb, arrogant Americans putting down every other country in the world! If you didn't have to register to use that site I would put them in their place..
PinkPig wrote:
> 1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do
> you think the monarchy has in the UK?
As far as I know, the monarchy have the final decision on any new law created. As for BT...they don't have a monopoly, not with AOL and Freeserve around, don't know about sensoring things that people recieve though. And for the BBC, they obviously decide what gets on and what dosn't in the news...
Just my thoughts...
> 1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do
> you think the monarchy has in the UK?
As far as I know, the monarchy have the final decision on any new law created. As for BT...they don't have a monopoly, not with AOL and Freeserve around, don't know about sensoring things that people recieve though. And for the BBC, they obviously decide what gets on and what dosn't in the news...
Just my thoughts...
Thanks for the support, Whitestripes. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one in the world with a brain ;-)
Mikelar, do you really think that the monarchy would say no to a law decided by parliament?
Mikelar, do you really think that the monarchy would say no to a law decided by parliament?
1) The monarchy has a final say, in theory, over new laws and that kind of thing, however, being a democracy and all that, there's been no recent examples of the monarchy stepping in. It's like, they could, but they can't, if you get what I mean !
2) Bt doesn't have any monopoly, and UK IPS cannot regualte what comes into the UK over the internet. The security services can however, monitor what comes in over certain connections if they obtain a court order, whihc is hard to do unless it's a major crime.
3) The BBC is guilty os mass news censoring and controlling the spin of information the public sees, as is ITV, somedays it's as if nothing happened on the planet apart from in the UK. Over Iraq and the war on terror both news channels have been quick to point out US/Allied failures and shortcomings but not successes. In the middle east both rely too much on hearsay and second hand accounts, plus both have a lack of commentary on whats happening. Sky news and Fox news are the 2 best channels out there at the moment - both are critical but fare on all stories and cover international event well also.
~~Belldandy~~
2) Bt doesn't have any monopoly, and UK IPS cannot regualte what comes into the UK over the internet. The security services can however, monitor what comes in over certain connections if they obtain a court order, whihc is hard to do unless it's a major crime.
3) The BBC is guilty os mass news censoring and controlling the spin of information the public sees, as is ITV, somedays it's as if nothing happened on the planet apart from in the UK. Over Iraq and the war on terror both news channels have been quick to point out US/Allied failures and shortcomings but not successes. In the middle east both rely too much on hearsay and second hand accounts, plus both have a lack of commentary on whats happening. Sky news and Fox news are the 2 best channels out there at the moment - both are critical but fare on all stories and cover international event well also.
~~Belldandy~~
Thanks again. I think I might point out to this guy that we CAN actually watch Sky, Fox, CNN, etc. - and I bet that loads of US news stations are just as bad about Iraq.
PinkPig wrote:
> Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask a few questions:
>
> 1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do
> you think the monarchy has in the UK?
Actually very little. Whilst the monarchy or more accurately, the Queen has the final say on the passing of any new laws, she is very unlikey to refuse passing any new laws incase the government revolted against the monarchy, and ended their reign. Yes the government has this power.
> 2) Do you think that (BTInternet / BT / Any other company) have a
> monopoly on the internet in the UK, and have the ability to censor
> material that UK surfers receive?
To an extent yes. Certainly they [BT] have a monopoly regarding telecommunications, as it is up to them whether or not they decide to provide service in certain areas of the country. But when acting as an ISP i would say the playing field is fairly even, there are at least 3 major ISP's i can think of off the top of my head. As for censorship, i would say no, i could go and look at anything i wanted at anytime. Regardless of explicit content.
> 3) Do you think that the BBC or other news channels censor news that
> is shown in the UK?
Not really, i would say we have a broad range of news stories delivered to our box. And whilst not ALL news is broadcast, the more important stories are usually covered. And local news is covered in your regional news programmes.
> Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask a few questions:
>
> 1) How much power (i.e. changing the law, deciding on policies) do
> you think the monarchy has in the UK?
Actually very little. Whilst the monarchy or more accurately, the Queen has the final say on the passing of any new laws, she is very unlikey to refuse passing any new laws incase the government revolted against the monarchy, and ended their reign. Yes the government has this power.
> 2) Do you think that (BTInternet / BT / Any other company) have a
> monopoly on the internet in the UK, and have the ability to censor
> material that UK surfers receive?
To an extent yes. Certainly they [BT] have a monopoly regarding telecommunications, as it is up to them whether or not they decide to provide service in certain areas of the country. But when acting as an ISP i would say the playing field is fairly even, there are at least 3 major ISP's i can think of off the top of my head. As for censorship, i would say no, i could go and look at anything i wanted at anytime. Regardless of explicit content.
> 3) Do you think that the BBC or other news channels censor news that
> is shown in the UK?
Not really, i would say we have a broad range of news stories delivered to our box. And whilst not ALL news is broadcast, the more important stories are usually covered. And local news is covered in your regional news programmes.
PinkPig wrote:
> Mikelar, do you really think that the monarchy would say no to a law
> decided by parliament?
I don't really know. I'm sure they would actually say no if the law was ridiculous but thats never the case so we'll never find out. :)
> Mikelar, do you really think that the monarchy would say no to a law
> decided by parliament?
I don't really know. I'm sure they would actually say no if the law was ridiculous but thats never the case so we'll never find out. :)
I've left my comments.