Discussion
Did anyone hear radio 4 You and yours. It seems the great 10 year plan to get us out of our cars is all but scrapped. MP for Ewel was on calling for better driver training (sensible guy) The green BBC then unearthed some ****wits to declare all sorts of rubbish.
Some lorry driver wants us all to have tachographs and to be taxed on how fast we go (another 2million civilservants needed)
Some joker wants petrol to be 30 times its current price
Some lonely guy wants a permanent state of fuel protest so we will all talk to him again?
Some barmy bitch from the Potteries wants JCB to provide transport for its workers so she can do the school run more easily
One tosser came up with a load of made up figures that suggested 9bn is spent on the NHS just to cope with car pollution and the presenter just said "yeah thats probably right then."
Why do these greens get away with this shit?
Some lorry driver wants us all to have tachographs and to be taxed on how fast we go (another 2million civilservants needed)
Some joker wants petrol to be 30 times its current price
Some lonely guy wants a permanent state of fuel protest so we will all talk to him again?
Some barmy bitch from the Potteries wants JCB to provide transport for its workers so she can do the school run more easily
One tosser came up with a load of made up figures that suggested 9bn is spent on the NHS just to cope with car pollution and the presenter just said "yeah thats probably right then."
Why do these greens get away with this shit?
Ponder on this. Stephen Byers was forced to resign not because he was incomeptent or dishonest (although he was) but because the those responsible for the media had decided they could make it happen. They do this not out of any sense of duty to the citizenry but for the same, simple reason (as the old joke goes) that dogs lick their bollocks - because they can.
In the same way, if the media can fuel a fire by suggesting that the motor car is responsible for every evil in the world, they will, just because they can.
At the root of it all, I believe, is the fact that simply reporting what is happening is not very interesting or profitable. In order to differentiate yourself in a competetive market you have to come up with something more controversial, more sensational than the next guy. How many people would buy a newspaper with the headline "Motor cars are an efficient and effective form of transport"?
In all this rush to find the next controversial story there is seldom any checking or corroboration of the information presented as fact. After all, you might find out it isn't true and there goes your story.
Some of these myths grow to epic proportions, the most obvious one being global warming. The fact is it's impossible to determine if there is a warming trend because the data is so noisy - the climate has swung around on its own through the history of the earth and continues to do so, the effect we're looking for is tiny and buried within this. It might exist, it might not, we just don't know.
In the absence of real evidence, both sides use what I call the Von Daniken technique. First of all you present a piece of inconclusive evidence. Then you propose an explanation for it. Finally you assume this explanation to be proven and use it in the next stage of your argument e.g.
1) Here is a cave painting which appears to show a round object hovering in the air
2) Could it be that the artist was trying to represent a flying saucer that he'd seen?
3) We have now proved that flying saucers exist because there are cave paintings of them and can go on to speculate further about where they come from etc.
Start looking for it - you'll be surprised how much accepted "fact" is based on this form of reasoning.
In the same way, if the media can fuel a fire by suggesting that the motor car is responsible for every evil in the world, they will, just because they can.
At the root of it all, I believe, is the fact that simply reporting what is happening is not very interesting or profitable. In order to differentiate yourself in a competetive market you have to come up with something more controversial, more sensational than the next guy. How many people would buy a newspaper with the headline "Motor cars are an efficient and effective form of transport"?
In all this rush to find the next controversial story there is seldom any checking or corroboration of the information presented as fact. After all, you might find out it isn't true and there goes your story.
Some of these myths grow to epic proportions, the most obvious one being global warming. The fact is it's impossible to determine if there is a warming trend because the data is so noisy - the climate has swung around on its own through the history of the earth and continues to do so, the effect we're looking for is tiny and buried within this. It might exist, it might not, we just don't know.
In the absence of real evidence, both sides use what I call the Von Daniken technique. First of all you present a piece of inconclusive evidence. Then you propose an explanation for it. Finally you assume this explanation to be proven and use it in the next stage of your argument e.g.
1) Here is a cave painting which appears to show a round object hovering in the air
2) Could it be that the artist was trying to represent a flying saucer that he'd seen?
3) We have now proved that flying saucers exist because there are cave paintings of them and can go on to speculate further about where they come from etc.
Start looking for it - you'll be surprised how much accepted "fact" is based on this form of reasoning.
quote:
In the absence of real evidence, both sides use what I call the Von Daniken technique. First of all you present a piece of inconclusive evidence. Then you propose an explanation for it. Finally you assume this explanation to be proven and use it in the next stage of your argument e.g.
1) Here is a cave painting which appears to show a round object hovering in the air
2) Could it be that the artist was trying to represent a flying saucer that he'd seen?
3) We have now proved that flying saucers exist because there are cave paintings of them and can go on to speculate further about where they come from etc.
Start looking for it - you'll be surprised how much accepted "fact" is based on this form of reasoning.
Ha, Von Daniken, and another clown whose name'll come back to me - not only do they get away with spouting such crap, piling as you say speculation on speculation, they sell skip loads of books on the subject and make mountains of money out of it ...
hey, not a bad idea that, I'll get a Tuscan R yet!
Graham Hancock, is the other dope.
Steve - what you say is true, but IMO the media are not the problem - sure I'd like to see thier proprietors and editors flayed and burned in Parliament Square (and I'd especially like it to happen before congestion charging comes in and I have to pay to get there..) but really, the media are merely symptomatic of a populous who are poorly educated (and intellectually malnourished due possibly to genetic, environmental, parental stupidity etc..).
If people were not so easily manipulated by the media, there wouldn't be the market for the nonsense they peddle. I rarely if ever buy a newspaper.. I won't pay to be told a bunch of lies written by a moron with a vested interest only in selling more papers tomorrow....
Apparently, a lot of people want a simple, quiet life and are prepared to put up with and even countenance the bilious tripe which is in the newspapers and on the TV.. well they're welcome to it..
Ignorance is the elysium of the masses... and it's a thriving market..
If people were not so easily manipulated by the media, there wouldn't be the market for the nonsense they peddle. I rarely if ever buy a newspaper.. I won't pay to be told a bunch of lies written by a moron with a vested interest only in selling more papers tomorrow....
Apparently, a lot of people want a simple, quiet life and are prepared to put up with and even countenance the bilious tripe which is in the newspapers and on the TV.. well they're welcome to it..
Ignorance is the elysium of the masses... and it's a thriving market..
Media!
Oh dear don't start me on this topic, I agree with your points guys and it scares me that a bunch of people have such a strong influence on the general public opinions.
I was listening to the news the other day and the newsreader said something that got me thinking as to how could she keep a straight face, she was talking about Bush and he was ranting on about the middle east and she said "The west are fearing that they(nasty evil people that eat babies) will get hold of "weapons of mass destruction" soon"
Then in the same sentence she said "..and the US (nice kind baby kissing saints) have increased the amount of "Nuclear Deterrents" in their cache"
I am sure the Iraqis and such like all sit round the table and say "you know, we need to get hold of some of those weapons of mass destruction so the west cannot keep threatening us all the time with their Nuclear Deterrents"
Its all bollocks, and don't get me started on the Israel/Palestine thing:
Suicide bomber = murdering terrorist
Missile fired from helicopter gunship into house = peace keeper
Its all a matter of technology.
Rant over
Oh dear don't start me on this topic, I agree with your points guys and it scares me that a bunch of people have such a strong influence on the general public opinions.
I was listening to the news the other day and the newsreader said something that got me thinking as to how could she keep a straight face, she was talking about Bush and he was ranting on about the middle east and she said "The west are fearing that they(nasty evil people that eat babies) will get hold of "weapons of mass destruction" soon"
Then in the same sentence she said "..and the US (nice kind baby kissing saints) have increased the amount of "Nuclear Deterrents" in their cache"
I am sure the Iraqis and such like all sit round the table and say "you know, we need to get hold of some of those weapons of mass destruction so the west cannot keep threatening us all the time with their Nuclear Deterrents"
Its all bollocks, and don't get me started on the Israel/Palestine thing:
Suicide bomber = murdering terrorist
Missile fired from helicopter gunship into house = peace keeper
Its all a matter of technology.
Rant over
quote:
...but really, the media are merely symptomatic of a populous who are poorly educated (and intellectually malnourished due possibly to genetic, environmental, parental stupidity etc..).
You're right of course. The reason the media behave the way they do is because there is a market for what they do and it makes money. one reason I never buy newspapers is that I get enough people telling me what they think and what I should think without paying for more.
Once upon a time it was witch hunts, now it's journalism.
how true... quote:
hey, not a bad idea that, I'll get a Tuscan R yet!
Graham Hancock, is the other dope.
So he's not such a dope after all - milked the dumb masses of their hard earned and lived to tell the tale in the lap of luxury! Good scam - whose got any ideas for the next hot topic, we can all contribute a paragraph or three and get it serialised globally .....
quote:
quote:
hey, not a bad idea that, I'll get a Tuscan R yet!
Graham Hancock, is the other dope.
So he's not such a dope after all - milked the dumb masses of their hard earned and lived to tell the tale in the lap of luxury! Good scam -
Good point. Obviously a shrewd bloke after all.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff