RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


It really must be Christmas....(42 posts)

It really must be Christmas....Eager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 8:03 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,845138,00.html
anyone getting tired of Guardian articles?trekkie1
Nov 22, 2002 8:36 AM
The Guardian is so full of bias, lack of objectivity, and falsehoods, that I couldn't give a rat's ass what it says. All it does is make the left wing socialist anti-American capitalism haters feel good. It's pure crap. Stirring crap (discussing it here) only makes it smellier, too.
2 Things.Eager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 8:41 AM
1. You can tell from the web address - if you don't want to read it, then don't.

2. Care to share the grounds for your presumably informed and considered opinion regarding the content of the Guardian?

Or is it actually you that's full of smelly crap?
2 Things.TJeanloz
Nov 22, 2002 8:48 AM
The issue I've had with this, and I believe I've made the point before, is that if I want to know the Guardian's opinion, I know where to find it. I come here because I want to know the opinions of the community here, so I don't understand why people persist in posting a link to somebody else's opinion. But there's no way to stop those who are so enlightened by the Guardian that they feel the rest of the world needs to hear about it. It would be similarly annoying regardless of source; how annoying would it be if I posted two articles a day from the Economist- an equally opinionated journal on the other end of the spectrum? Or the National Review?

I frankly don't understand the motives of the group that re-posts Guardian articles. Are they trying to teach us something? Do they believe we don't know something and the Guardian is going to enlighten us? Do they think everybody cares what the Guardian has to say?

Simply put, I'd rather hear your commentary than the Guardian's.
commentaryMJ
Nov 22, 2002 8:52 AM
McDonalds is crap - it's good they're doing poorly - it'd be great if they went out of business

and yes the posts are meant to be ecuational - alot of stuff is published in the Guardian that doesn't appear in US press - the Poindexter article from the other day is a prime example
depends on what you mean by the US PressColnagoFE
Nov 22, 2002 9:09 AM
There are publications for right wing, left wing, and every sort of wing in between if you look for it. Think about stuff like The Spotlight, The National Review, etc.
depends on what you mean by the US PressMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:14 AM
agreed - as I've repeatedly said I read alot of press and acknowledge alot of viewpoints are valid - but the Guardian stuff that's being posted is being interpreted as anti-US when it's not

why is questioning Poindexter anti-US?
McDonalds?
Geography - which was a post from the National Geograhic/CNN - the Guardian had a harsher view of the UK situation than the CNN article appears to

the Guardian does always get a reaction and I'm not sure why
CNN reached a new low todayColnagoFE
Nov 22, 2002 9:33 AM
I mean really now...is this news? http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/22/health.laptop.reut/index.html

I personally think it's a good idea to read a number of publications regardless of where your own personal politics lie.
LOL - nmMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:35 AM
Shuuuush! Grief man,Eager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 9:36 AM
read around to be intellectually challanged and better informed!

Don't let our friends Troll Chair and Trekkie hear those ludicrous subversive ideas (I wouldn't be surprised if they are anti-American as well!)

I shall, however, sit a little further from my lap-top..
Poindexter,TJeanloz
Nov 22, 2002 9:39 AM
MJ, I believe you do not live in the United States (my own inference, I could be entirely wrong), and hence question how you know what does, and does not, appear in the U.S. press. The Poindexter story led the 11:00 newscast last night in Boston, and has also appeared in the New York Times, MSNBC content, Washington Post, Washington Times, and pretty much every other AP carrying news outlet.

The Guardian always gets a reaction because it often misrepresents facts (though, as we have previously discussed, usually uses facts), and connotes attitudes about Americans and the American government that are not shared by many in the United States.
That's the point.Eager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 9:44 AM
How would anyone outside the US know that if it weren't for the few people who put across the real attiudes, as opposed to just dismissing the paper as "shit" etc?

On a related angle, there are lots of us who are not in the US who read US papers, either here (lots of City firms have them) or on-line.
what gives thenMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:46 AM
the Guardian was what at least 24-48 hours ahead of the US Press with that piece of trivia? it's good someone's finally at least raising the question in the US - maybe the Guardian should be given a prize for being the first to deal with the story?

I get all my news from the web - Argentina to US - Australia to the UK - where one lives isn't that important for news sources...

for me TV news consists of BBC and Channel 4

any examples of Guardian misrepresenting facts? the Hamilton website doesn't count - unless you include his related jail term
Calling Poindexter a convicted felon,TJeanloz
Nov 22, 2002 10:02 AM
Calling Poindexter a convicted felon is a misrepresentation of facts. It is a fact that Poindexter was convicted of a felony. It is a misrepresentation, because his conviction was overturned on appeal. It is sensationalist news coverage to lead with the 'fact' that he is a convicted felon - it would be like introducing Bill Clinton as the "impeached" former President of the United States.

The Poindexter story hit the AP wires as early as November 11, a week before the Guardian reported it.
I don't see the problemEager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 8:57 AM
Who controls your mouse? You DON'T HAVE TO READ IT.

I happen to be one of those, apparently small, number of people who like to read things I don't necessarily agree with because they make me question my views on issues.

I like to hear other peoples opinions on issues.

Regrettably, you can't help but shoot the mesenger - that's your problem not mine.

Oh no - hang on - I know where I screwed up - I'm aiming at a discussion on a discussion forum. Silly me...

Oh yeah - and I really couldn't give a shit if you post stuff from the Ecomonist - I can manage the self-control not to read it if I don't want to - why don't you try that?
converselymohair_chair
Nov 22, 2002 8:59 AM
Who controls your mouse? You DON'T HAVE TO POST IT.
OK, good, now let's tryEager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 9:03 AM
an ARGUMENT. Yes that's right, try to say something INTELLIGENT and THOUGHT-PROVOKING, with some LOGIC instead of just your usual witless bile.

No? Surprise...

Rest on this. I'm gonna post what I like - you are the one who has to deal with it.

Try some growing up.
so very amusingmohair_chair
Nov 22, 2002 9:12 AM
All I did was repost your own words, which you then blasted as not being "INTELLIGENT and THOUGHT-PROVOKING," without LOGIC, and "witless bile."

I could not have said it better myself.

By the way, your typical tactic of insisting on having the last word and making some dumb comment is the equivalent of the playground retort "I know you are, but what am I?" Your countryman and stooge MJ does the same thing. Childish.
so very amusingMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:17 AM
here's how it works

anyone in the world can post anything they want on the internet

anyone in the world can not read anything they don't wanna read

it's really very simple

should the onus be on what's allowed (by you) to be posted?

how's that Pizza delivery job going?
Utterly wrong again.Eager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 9:17 AM
1) You have no idea of my nationality, or MJs.

2) You are right - you couldn't say anything better yourself.

3) No - we are just feeding the stupid fat troll till he bursts. Can't be long now.

4) Your last word? Childish - sums it up nicely.

Is it nearly your bed time yet?
Here's an argument53T
Nov 25, 2002 9:29 AM
Although one should never argue with an idiot (the guardian) since people may not be able to tell the difference, I will take the risk.

1) How can McDonalds announce the closing of stores in three undisclosed countries? Wouldn't you have to tell those stores to close, in order to get anywhere? Do they think nobody will notice when this stores close? Or does the editor for the Guardian simply have his head up his ass?

2) Why does the Guardian call McDonalds the "self-appointed" alternative UN? It was not McDonalds who published the fast-food peace theory, it was in fact a well respected international relations scholar. The theory grew from the democratic peace theory, in which no two democratic nations have gone to war with each other in recent times. We can debate which counries are democratic, but is evident which ones contain McDonalds. I propose that the Guardian editor is just trying to be a jerk and pick a fight with McDonalds and by extension the US.
Do trolls eat Burgers? nmEager Beagle
Nov 25, 2002 9:36 AM
I guess they just relied on the press release from McD'sMJ
Nov 25, 2002 9:38 AM
http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/press/financial/2002/11082002/index.html

did you hear of the McLibel case here in the UK?
I guess they just relied on the crap from McD's53T
Nov 25, 2002 5:31 PM
That press release says McDonalds is closing three countries and restructuring four others. Am I suposed to take that at face value? Do Bush and Cheney know about this? They also have a few countries they would like to close.
Loads of people swallow crap from McDs every day...Eager Beagle
Nov 26, 2002 1:58 AM
Mebbe you are right - perhaps this is an evil Mcplot by the McOverlords to boost Mcprofits by telling everyone that they are Mcclosing stores, when they really Mcaren't.

Cunning as a big Mcbag of Mccunning things.

Ever notice how "Guardian" and "McD" share no Mcletters? McSpooky...
Loads of people swallow crap from McDs every day...OTG
Dec 2, 2002 7:56 PM
>Ever notice how "Guardian" and "McD" share no Mcletters? >McSpooky...

Except for "d".
(McDoh?)

-owen
I don't think you McGot that one...nmEager Beagle
Dec 3, 2002 6:24 AM
we all get to share our opinions, right?trekkie1
Nov 22, 2002 9:30 AM
This free speech thing works for everyone; you get to post worthless drivel from a worthless rag, we others get to post their opinions about that, right? I get to discuss your post as much as you do mine. Works both ways. Sure, you have the freedom to then say stupid things about my comments, and on and on ad nauseum. Aren't we having fun?
You got it!Eager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 9:33 AM
That's the way it works!

Can you boil that down and explain it to Mr Chair do you think?

Thanks for your enlightened answer to my question about your knowledge of the Guardian's content by the way (oh no, hang on, it didn't seem to post...)
look at the finance release from McD'sMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:33 AM
then compare it with the Guardian article

then we'll talk about what's worthless drivel

I'm having fun
You are entirely right,TJeanloz
Nov 22, 2002 9:55 AM
I don't have to read it, and generally don't until there's enough discussion to merit entering the fray. I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm questioning his motives. I love reading things that I don't agree with, and I like discussing them with people of varying points of view.

But I don't understand why anybody would post a link to a story without any commentary. I'm not opposed to posting a link to a story - note my post yesterday regarding Scott Moninger on the General board: highlights my feelings, gives a link (actually 2) to the full story, facilitates a starting point for discussion. I know, because I routinely read the Guardian (for entertainment purposes), what the writer thinks - but I come here to know what you think, not to learn what I already know.

I think people want to have the discussions, it's just frustrating to see a topic post from somebody like Eager Beagle- you think: "this should be interesting"; and instead, it's a link to some Guardian article that you've already read and know the story to.
We can only apologiseEager Beagle
Nov 25, 2002 2:11 AM
That the standard of posting on this board does not meet your personal benchmark, and that you already know everything.

My unbaised advice can only be:

1) Immediately cancel your subscription.
2) Lobby your congressman to stop this wicked waste of your time.
3) Lobby Gregg for a warning on the top of the non-cycling discussion page saying:-

"DANGER - may contain references to topics not of interest to, or already within the exhaustive knowlegde of, the reader"

4) Start a newsgroup dealing only with issues that are not reported in the "amusing" Guardian.

We do what we can, but this situation has clearly sprialled right out of control, with people clicking on Guardian links having no idea that this will link them to the Guardian, which they have already read on-line.

THIS MADNESS HAS GOT TO STOP!

:-)
At least you acknowledge that I know everything (nm)TJeanloz
Nov 25, 2002 6:32 AM
Totally agreemohair_chair
Nov 22, 2002 8:58 AM
There used to be a lot of original thought and opinion on this board. Lately it's all been mostly reposts from the most anti-US rag outside of the Islamic world. I guess it makes our British friends feel better about themselves, but I welcome the day when their anti-US rhetoric actually comes from them, not some other source.
Totally agreeMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:01 AM
name one thing that's been posted this week from the Guardian that is remotely anti-American
Totally agreemohair_chair
Nov 22, 2002 9:07 AM
Classically myopic. We're not just talking about this week. We're talking about months. Months and months of posted links to the Guardian, with no or minimal comment from yourself.

Here's a question: name one thing you've posted this week that was an original thought.
That's not actually a questions is it? Q.E.D. nmEager Beagle
Nov 22, 2002 9:09 AM
trollMJ
Nov 22, 2002 9:11 AM
I liked the XXX comment and the request you try and get some remedial education to help you understand when the grown ups are speaking
and now for something completely differentColnagoFE
Nov 22, 2002 8:43 AM
http://www.chick.com/

These "tracts" have gotta even make devout christians cringe. kinda funny in a perverse sorta way though.
LOL - nmMJ
Nov 22, 2002 8:53 AM
just because you don't like the paperMJ
Nov 22, 2002 8:50 AM
doesn't mean it's not true

taken form the proverbial horses mouth - how much spin is here vs. the Guardian

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/press/financial/2002/11082002/index.html

if McDonalds represents to you all that's great about capitalism and America you must live in a terrible suburban hell with strip malls - go ahead embrace the mediocrity

any source for bias/subjectivity/falsehoods - and can you please contrast it with your preferred news source
If only it were always a matter of choice, like Roev.Wade128
Nov 22, 2002 10:36 AM
(warning!!: opinions below. Take um and leave um somewhere else...I'm done with them)

sometimes a choice is wrong. Confused?? You won't be after this instalment of: close to the vest and no clear motive! (ok,l the motive is critical thinking) Think of it like Blues lyrics, or a picture's meaning: often the interpretation says more about the listener than that to which they listen)

Anyway,and for example, no one really answered the question "does it bother you...", but answered instead: "Is it right or wrong to post links? Does the choice factor overide the bothersomness of being presented with the choice..."??

(now the point broadens from posting links to the ongoing lib. v. con. boilerplate bs rhetoric. ie the con. side decided the issue devolves to "choice" analysis,while the other side seems to believe there is a protocol -and standards of group opinion (dare I say democratic principles)- in play when in a group setting...Ah shoop, I'm just jamming now and inferering too much. Ok, everyone to my house! And we'll pick this up over a keg!

I like to believe the presenter of the choices should be held to the same standards of responsibility in presenting the choices (which is paramount in our capatalist, market driven representative republic), as the standards which are applied to the chooser to choose responsibly: Present irresponsibly- stand for correction. Choose irresponsibley- suffer the consequences. Yes, the point eventually leads to a valuation system- what is resposible (I'd go the deconstructionist route and circle back through conservative economics and social liberalism), which paradoxically is the beginning of the issue at the end of the analysis, and where I like to think the idea of God (and I don't mean religion)resovels the conversation nicely.

Solution: choose your parents well!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/opinion/22KRUG.html