The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3049868.stm
--
Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".
I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.
--
Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".
I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.
Page:
GO AWAY!!!
NOW
SCRAM
SHOO
NOW
SCRAM
SHOO
Yet you can reply at 22:36 in the "Hussein's boys are dead?" thread.
Which proves, without doubt, what a false, sanctimonious liar you are my friend.
You don't have Deterring Democracy, you have never read Chomsky let alone "leafed through it" and, yet again, you deliberately ignore a thread in which you have been proven to be, yet again, wrong.
When will the shame and realisation that you have zero credibility force you to admit that, yes, you speak foundless nonsense for a vast majority of the time?
"I have it here on the shelf"
Yet you couldnt give me a sentence from a page.
And you didn't answer why you say Chomsky thinks the cold war is still in effect.
Pathetic, disgraced little wannabe that you are.
Which proves, without doubt, what a false, sanctimonious liar you are my friend.
You don't have Deterring Democracy, you have never read Chomsky let alone "leafed through it" and, yet again, you deliberately ignore a thread in which you have been proven to be, yet again, wrong.
When will the shame and realisation that you have zero credibility force you to admit that, yes, you speak foundless nonsense for a vast majority of the time?
"I have it here on the shelf"
Yet you couldnt give me a sentence from a page.
And you didn't answer why you say Chomsky thinks the cold war is still in effect.
Pathetic, disgraced little wannabe that you are.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit.
--
Yet you feel fit to dismiss all of his opinions out of hand?
Sorry Bell, but he knows more than you. Whether you like to admit it or not.
Or are you going to claim, as a 21yr old Uni student, that you are more aware of socio-political ideology than Noam Chomsky - a man regarded, even by detractors, as one of the foremost political intellectuals of our times?
I'm not going to let this go.
Because Chomsky is one area I'll rape you on, repeatedly.
You've claimed over and over to not read him, to not value his ideas.
Just as you have done with the BBC.
Yet as soon as you think you can use it to your advantage, you post links from BBC sites and start to try and sound knowledgeable about Chomsky???
Hah
I say you have never read him, dont own Deterring Democracy and are incredibly naieve for thinking I'm not going to pull you up over every single Chomsky related post you make.
Talk all you want Bell, but you're on *my* territory now and I'll take great delight in politely proving you wrong on Chomsky, his ideals, books, essays and comments about/to/in the press.
30 mins now and you still haven't posted those sentences I asked.
You'll come out with some weak excuse, but fact remains you haven't read it, dont own it and dont know enough about him to answer the question:
Why do you say Noam Chomsky is convinced the cold war is still in effect?
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit.
--
Yet you feel fit to dismiss all of his opinions out of hand?
Sorry Bell, but he knows more than you. Whether you like to admit it or not.
Or are you going to claim, as a 21yr old Uni student, that you are more aware of socio-political ideology than Noam Chomsky - a man regarded, even by detractors, as one of the foremost political intellectuals of our times?
I'm not going to let this go.
Because Chomsky is one area I'll rape you on, repeatedly.
You've claimed over and over to not read him, to not value his ideas.
Just as you have done with the BBC.
Yet as soon as you think you can use it to your advantage, you post links from BBC sites and start to try and sound knowledgeable about Chomsky???
Hah
I say you have never read him, dont own Deterring Democracy and are incredibly naieve for thinking I'm not going to pull you up over every single Chomsky related post you make.
Talk all you want Bell, but you're on *my* territory now and I'll take great delight in politely proving you wrong on Chomsky, his ideals, books, essays and comments about/to/in the press.
30 mins now and you still haven't posted those sentences I asked.
You'll come out with some weak excuse, but fact remains you haven't read it, dont own it and dont know enough about him to answer the question:
Why do you say Noam Chomsky is convinced the cold war is still in effect?
Blank wrote:
> I had you down for more intelligence than that.
Heh. Now come on, you and I both know that was a lie. ;0)
> I had you down for more intelligence than that.
Heh. Now come on, you and I both know that was a lie. ;0)
Practical Magic wrote:
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no
> way I'd by his toss.
--
"Whatever"
Oh dear oh dear. Sounds to me like you've been called on your "I have deterring democracy" rubbish.
C'mon, give me the 3 sentences.
Just reach over to your shelf and tell me what they are.
Not search for an online version or nip down to Borders.
It's been 20 mins now since last you posted, shouldn't take that long.
Oh, and here's an article about Russia, to counter your "not least Russia" balls
http://www.zmag.org/ chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no
> way I'd by his toss.
--
"Whatever"
Oh dear oh dear. Sounds to me like you've been called on your "I have deterring democracy" rubbish.
C'mon, give me the 3 sentences.
Just reach over to your shelf and tell me what they are.
Not search for an online version or nip down to Borders.
It's been 20 mins now since last you posted, shouldn't take that long.
Oh, and here's an article about Russia, to counter your "not least Russia" balls
http://www.zmag.org/ chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html
Practical Magic wrote:
To me, he still thinks in
> terms nation states exercising power over other nation states and that
> military power is the main leverage.
--
Here you are:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html
In which Chomsky discusses the notion of rogue states.
Not global superpowers.
It's interesting stuff and roundly points out a lot of errors you make in assumptions of his ideas.
To me, he still thinks in
> terms nation states exercising power over other nation states and that
> military power is the main leverage.
--
Here you are:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html
In which Chomsky discusses the notion of rogue states.
Not global superpowers.
It's interesting stuff and roundly points out a lot of errors you make in assumptions of his ideas.
No way you'd buy his toss? When you haven't even read it? I had you down for more intelligence than that.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no
> way I'd by his toss.
--
Nuh-huh
You dismissed Chomsky by saying "as far as he's concerned, the cold war is still in effect"
Why do you say this and what gives you that impression?
Answer the question.
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no
> way I'd by his toss.
--
Nuh-huh
You dismissed Chomsky by saying "as far as he's concerned, the cold war is still in effect"
Why do you say this and what gives you that impression?
Answer the question.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no
> way I'd by his toss.
---
Ok, so on page 164, 3rd paragraph down.
First 3 sentences please.
> Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it
> but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no
> way I'd by his toss.
---
Ok, so on page 164, 3rd paragraph down.
First 3 sentences please.
Practical Magic wrote:
> I also find it simplistic how Chomsky asserts that the media is
> implicit in the flow of information to the public and that the public
> is really that easily decieve or powerless to act against political
> actors.
HAHAHAHAHA
Ok, if you read Deterring Democracy, Mr Dandy, you would no doubt have read the chapters dealing with the transference of phraseology and linguistics utilised by Rupert Murdoch's news organisations (with complicit assistance from The Pentagon and Ari Fleischer)
I just don't buy into the kind of world vision he puts forward
> in Deterring Democracy. From what I've read he is focused narrowly on
> the US to the exclusion of all others - such as Russia. It is easy to
> look back and criticise but less easy to make the call without having
> a crystal ball at the time.
----
"He is narrowly focused on the US to the exclusion of all others - such as Russia"
So where he talks about the coverage of the Chechen conflict doesn't count? Or the manner in which El Salvador and Guatamala have come under intense scrutiny for deliberately defying US offered assistance with media coverage?
Bell, I warn you now - you want to talk about Chomsky that's cool. But I'll tear each and every point apart.
Because you haven't read any, merely lifted from basic review and discussion forums concerning Chomsky.
Whereas I've been reading, buying and discussing his literature since I was a nipper.
However, I've emailed your comments to him and I'll post his response.
You are going to look extremely, extremely silly here Bell - I warn you.
> I also find it simplistic how Chomsky asserts that the media is
> implicit in the flow of information to the public and that the public
> is really that easily decieve or powerless to act against political
> actors.
HAHAHAHAHA
Ok, if you read Deterring Democracy, Mr Dandy, you would no doubt have read the chapters dealing with the transference of phraseology and linguistics utilised by Rupert Murdoch's news organisations (with complicit assistance from The Pentagon and Ari Fleischer)
I just don't buy into the kind of world vision he puts forward
> in Deterring Democracy. From what I've read he is focused narrowly on
> the US to the exclusion of all others - such as Russia. It is easy to
> look back and criticise but less easy to make the call without having
> a crystal ball at the time.
----
"He is narrowly focused on the US to the exclusion of all others - such as Russia"
So where he talks about the coverage of the Chechen conflict doesn't count? Or the manner in which El Salvador and Guatamala have come under intense scrutiny for deliberately defying US offered assistance with media coverage?
Bell, I warn you now - you want to talk about Chomsky that's cool. But I'll tear each and every point apart.
Because you haven't read any, merely lifted from basic review and discussion forums concerning Chomsky.
Whereas I've been reading, buying and discussing his literature since I was a nipper.
However, I've emailed your comments to him and I'll post his response.
You are going to look extremely, extremely silly here Bell - I warn you.
Page: