Latest post of the previous page:
So you wouldn't have a review, then Alan?The BBC is governed by a Royal Charter and the current Charter is due to expire at the end of 2016.
Latest post of the previous page:
So you wouldn't have a review, then Alan?The BBC is governed by a Royal Charter and the current Charter is due to expire at the end of 2016.
Nick wrote:So you wouldn't have a review, then Alan?The BBC is governed by a Royal Charter and the current Charter is due to expire at the end of 2016.
Yes. It's your continued non sequitur responses.Nick wrote:Just another emoticon response.
What's wrong with having a review every now and again? I've certainly never said there shouldn't be, have I?Nick wrote:So you would have a review, then?
Oh, I see. Just a cut and paste. Should have guessed. Oh well....Alan H wrote:What's wrong with having a review every now and again? I've certainly never said there shouldn't be, have I?Nick wrote:So you would have a review, then?
Good grief, Nick.Nick wrote:Oh, I see. Just a cut and paste. Should have guessed. Oh well....Alan H wrote:What's wrong with having a review every now and again? I've certainly never said there shouldn't be, have I?Nick wrote:So you would have a review, then?
Ah, yes. The alternative to the emoticon response.Alan H wrote:Good grief, Nick.
You quoted a line from the link and immediately jumped to the implied conclusion:Here we go...
Shortly afterwards, you said:So you wouldn't have a review, then Alan?
I replied:So you would have a review, then?
Your response to that:What's wrong with having a review every now and again? I've certainly never said there shouldn't be, have I?
What on earth are you on about, Nick? What did I cut and paste? The link to the Government review? Why the fuck would you object to that? What is your problem?Oh, I see. Just a cut and paste. Should have guessed. Oh well....
I'm not objecting to anything, Alan. And of course, it's fine to bring stuff to the attention of fellow posters. But maybe if you gave us some idea of why you are doing so, or more importantly, some clue as to why a response (especially from me) should receive just an emoticon or an expletive, then that might help.Alan H wrote:What on earth are you on about, Nick? What did I cut and paste? The link to the Government review? Why the fuck would you object to that? What is your problem?
Well, yes, when I have to guess what you are trying to say.This is an utterly surreal conversation.
jaywhat wrote:perhaps we should have a Nick and Alan thread
Nick wrote:I'm not objecting to anything, Alan. And of course, it's fine to bring stuff to the attention of fellow posters. But maybe if you gave us some idea of why you are doing so, or more importantly, some clue as to why a response (especially from me) should receive just an emoticon or an expletive, then that might help.Alan H wrote:What on earth are you on about, Nick? What did I cut and paste? The link to the Government review? Why the fuck would you object to that? What is your problem?
There, that's better than "good grief" or , wouldn't you say?
Well, yes, when I have to guess what you are trying to say.This is an utterly surreal conversation.
So, Alan, do you have something to say about the BBC and the review?
I think you've succeeded, AlanAlan H wrote:
Nick. I'm not trying to fucking say anything!
But when I comment, you very often don't. You just post an emoticon or a dismissive FFS, which, ISTM, rather stalls the thread.I posted the original link to the review FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT.
It's not only God who works in mysterious ways.Why is that not clear to you?
It's your board- you can do exactly what you like. It does seem a pity though, that it seems to have moved from a humanist site to a socialist one.Do expect me to provide my thoughts on everything when I post a link? Do I need to have a fully thought-out position of the subject before pointing it out to the folks here? Why are we - again - having these facile meta conversations instead of discussing the actual topic?
Of course! Now, what did you want to say?Now, can we actually discuss the BBC and the Government review???
FFS.Nick wrote:I think you've succeeded, AlanAlan H wrote:
Nick. I'm not trying to fucking say anything!
Nick, have you looked in a mirror? Your first comment under my posting of a link to the Government review was:But when I comment, you very often don't. You just post an emoticon or a dismissive FFS, which, ISTM, rather stalls the thread.I posted the original link to the review FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT.
Can you see that? How does that move the conversation along? That's what stalled it. Why couldn't you have simply asked a polite relevant question or made a comment on, you know, the actual review? No. You seemed to want to know what I thought, but first jumping to a conclusion about a position I never said I held.So you wouldn't have a review, then Alan?
It's not only God who works in mysterious ways.Why is that not clear to you?
WTF? You're doing it again! What has being a humanist (or even socialist - whatever that means) site got to do with views on the Government's review of the BBC? By all means challenge what's said, but at least do it on the basis of what is said, not on what - I suspect - you believe to be a pejorative (and derogatory) all-encompassing description of the forum as a whole.It's your board- you can do exactly what you like. It does seem a pity though, that it seems to have moved from a humanist site to a socialist one.Do expect me to provide my thoughts on everything when I post a link? Do I need to have a fully thought-out position of the subject before pointing it out to the folks here? Why are we - again - having these facile meta conversations instead of discussing the actual topic?
Let me try one more time:Of course! Now, what did you want to say?Now, can we actually discuss the BBC and the Government review???
And all the more reason to ensure politicians stop meddling with it.Altfish wrote:Whoever is in Government wants to control the BBC, the Tories do it by threatening and culling; Labour by calling its reporting into question. (The Hutton Enquiry and Alistair Campbell)
I find it amazing that the BBC is right wing when the Labour Party is in control and left wing when the Tories are in. In actual fact it is critical of the Government of whichever colour, which is good. The control and fear that the Tories induce in the BBC is like a totalitarian state; but to a lesser degree Labour did it; and for that matter the SNP tried it on during the Independence election last year. They are all at it.
Spot on, exactly what I was getting atAlan H wrote:And all the more reason to ensure politicians stop meddling with it.Altfish wrote:Whoever is in Government wants to control the BBC, the Tories do it by threatening and culling; Labour by calling its reporting into question. (The Hutton Enquiry and Alistair Campbell)
I find it amazing that the BBC is right wing when the Labour Party is in control and left wing when the Tories are in. In actual fact it is critical of the Government of whichever colour, which is good. The control and fear that the Tories induce in the BBC is like a totalitarian state; but to a lesser degree Labour did it; and for that matter the SNP tried it on during the Independence election last year. They are all at it.