h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How do, Novo. I thought it would be more sensible to address these points here.

You said in post 351:
"That [why isnt F. Bruce allowed to display a cross] was the question I sought to ask, because it typified the sort of reverse racism/ positive discrimination which gets up my nose. Who were the BBC seeking not to offend? Not Edward, it would make no difference to him , nor to the milions of other people in Britain....WE , in this case the BBC , must stop worsening the us/them divide by taking actions which are seen to pander to the more extreme muslim.

I replied that far from pandering to extremist Muslims the BBC was if anything pro-christian in its output.

I pointed out which religion got the most airtime devoted to it in a positive way you seem to think this has no bearing on the issues you raised because in post 466 we get this:
" Where in Hells name do you draw the"suggestion" from that the BBC devotes too much time to muslims than to Christians? Where on earth did I say that.

I didnt say you said that the BBC gives too much *time* to Muslim views I was spurred by your allegation of pro-Islamic bias and "attempts to placate the implacatable"


Also in 466 you said:
Where did I indicate that I don't want the the BBC to follow the views of a handful, and then advocate that they do? Perhaps my english is bad , but what I was trying to say was that we should ALL be able to wear what we like, as long as it isn't a V sign .

Well you have just done it again. you seem to think things should be the way you and like minded people want them and that's all that matters. What if the majority wanted the "v" sign to be acceptable and even if the majority didnt want it to be what if they werent overly fussed one way nor the other and didnt bother to make a fuss?

Would things have to change in favour of the views of a vocal minority just because they felt morally justified in their views as you always seem to be?


Then I lost you by being silly as I often do with ohter people. In post 384 I wrote:
In post 466 you replied:
4: The BBC is ayed for by christians, muslims and atheists and no one of these or other groups should or does receive special favours.

5: Point number four is an outrageous lie and there are more hours of christain broadcasting on the BBC than I care to mention, but if your really interested you could take a look yourself ratehr than just prattling on about it.



"4 & 5 I think youv've lost it here - it has no connections to anything I have tried to say.


It appears to be a little known fact that although the BBC is funded by all licence payers equally the small percetage of Christian licence payers get favourable treament from it. Christian clerics get more airtime than those of other faiths and as for atheist people who get a chance to put a rationalist or humanist view point you can just about forget it. True some of what might be considered Christian slanted programing could be sen as falling in with the Christain influenced culture of the UK which as you say is the predominant culture. What I was alluding to unsucessfully in points four and five is that this is not the case regardless of what people do or do not beleive here and now in Britain the law actually states that the BBC MUST provide a certain amount of christian broadcasting.

So for the confusion, despite missing the mark several times i still keep trying to be funny.

Yes you do prattle but then so do I.

As to your point about me following my tag line more closely...as any good nanny or the immortal bard will tell you, "Sometimes you have to be crule to be kind"

one love

Afteroon Blicky,

Thanks for the post , perhaps best here than on the main forum....

I thought that after Otto's post which torpedoed the cross thingie, I had withdrawn that assertion? If you accept that I had then I am no longer accusing the BBC of pandering.

I have said all along that I don't like preferential treatment for either side, or any side come to that.

As far as the BBC's ouput, by regulation or by choice, I have no idea about the relative hourly count, I have never sought to check it. The only thing I KNOW is that being a lapsed Christian I still enjoy Songs of Praise on a Sunday, and I always enjoy Radio's Thought for The Day -, largely becuase it isn't religious per se , but about our humanity, and it is given by a very wide range of speakers from differing faiths - including Muslims.

Again on the Christian point it is hardly surpising that we get a fair amount of airtime, because we are nominally Christian, and because as you point out it is in The Charter. I don't object to the same amount of time being given to other faiths, but it might be impractical in view of the potential numbers!

Perhaps we should stop religious broadcasting altogether - that would certainly please Edward...

Finally 'wear any symbol as long as it isn't a V sign@ - attempted humour there since the V sign os even single finger sign would offend vast numbers. How does that make me want things my way? I would have though it would have given enormous scope for individual expression.

<>

I don't get this one> What vocal minority do you mean? I have tried all along to speak AGAINST changing things to please a minority - or I 'thought' I had.

You're right, of course I prattle, dammit I'm practically 66 - it's what old people do!

Lastly , I don't know what it is about my language or attitude apart from my age which so quicjkly gets your head of steanm up? I hope you will admit that I have always tried to see others points , and admitted when I am wrong. I a really not the Devil in disguise you know.

Novo

I think its more than a little hypocritical for you go around ask and the forum complaing about cliques and snipping when the first thing you did on this thread was to chime in with someone needlessly snipping. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=3833814&post=45028487#p45025732 At the time I thought Id ignore that and I have until now but what has brought me here now again is this slander. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=3822669&post=45138195#p45138053 I cant believe you are too dim to realise given my previous posts in that thread that I agree SWL's assesment and too stupid to read THE POST ABOVE YOUR OWN to see that I have said, in around about way, that I do indeed agree. What really gets up my nose is this BS about not admitting when Im wrong. When I know Ive been wrong I do have the balls to say so I havent agreed to any such thing because I simply dont agree. Not agreeing is not the same as being wrong and not admitting it your senility surely hasnt robbed you of the ability to work that out, has it? I said: "Shops, pubs and the like can only legally bar people with a justifiable reason. If you are trying to break the law and purchase drinks for minors or shoplifiting for example they cant just say "There is something about the way you lead your life, which while not being illegal, bothers me so bugger off" You disagreed, because it is in all our natures to be wrong sometimes you apeare to make a hobby out of it. Then you keep stating the opposite is true and on other threads! Moreover OTHER PEOPLE have told you I was right, how rude of you is it to ignore them? Is that kind of thing the good manners you claim to maintain? "SWL� The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. - Voltaire A shopkeeper, hotelier or service provider has elected to provide a service by choice. No one forced him to provide the service and therefore service provision is entirely at his discretion. For example - a shopkeeper can refuse to serve you and ask that you leave the premises and he does not have to say why. Equally, he can charge you 100 times what he chooses to charge others and again, he does not have to say why. *However, he does not have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, disability or sexual orientation.* This would have to be proved in court and the onus would be upon the claimant to prove that he was discriminated against.... A quote from an e-mail I received from a lawyer friend: "it's illegal to discriminate on certain grounds but proving it is another matter. The hotelier might, for example, say 'Yes, I discriminated against that black guy but my discrimination wasn't based on any illegal criteria. It's just that I always refuse to accept bookings from people with a public school accent". That would be perfectly legal. Im not sure which disgusts me more your hypocrisy or your witless Werthers Original style posts about how things were better in the olden days.

Thank Blicky,

It is all very clear now. I regret that you are so disgusted by me and my posts. That is sad, because I am as entitled to my view as you are to yours........ at least I thought so.

It is also possible that if we met in a pub, and discussed the same things, where facial expression and tone were obvious, we just might agree on a fair few points. What is more we might actually get on well.

The trouble with HooToo is that the very faceless nature of it removes the nuance, humour, micky taking etc which can therefore be abhorrant to some posters.

With 10 grandchildren, loads of friends, work. hobbies and business mates I don't think I am quite the ogre you seem to think,( at least in the eyes of those who actually know me) though I admit to being irrational at times.

I also admit to being a Werther, but then what else could I be?

I am prepared to accept that you are a thoroughly decent bloke, but I have to say that your own style of literary combat doesn't give quite that impression.

Perhaps we should agree to bury the hatchet over our mutual antagonism. We can post on the forum with due respect to each other, or if you prefer we need not respond to anything we each post. Would that suit you?

Novo

Dont know about me being a thouroughly decent bloke, but I'll think fairly decent is about right.

I think you are probably a nicer person than I am. Your posts here though make me quite annoyed at times. In the thread about the Law being an Ass you bring up shiks and crash helemts alongside catholics and gay adoption as if the are the same. Several other times Ive explained to you that they are different. Why try to defend the indefesible in this way with perfectly reasonable laws that protect a persons right to put themselves in harms way as if that makes it alright for some to infringe others human rights.

You are as you say entitled to your view but if lets say your view is that the sun revolves the earth, then even when you are told incontrovertibly that the opposite is true, would you be surprised if people got pee'd of with you every time you trotted out the same old nonsense about an earth centred solar system?

See when I pick you up on dodgy logic like this its not to say what your saying isnt true Im just saying what you use as proof doesnt prove your point.
"With 10 grandchildren, loads of friends, work. hobbies and business mates I don't think I am quite the ogre you seem to think,( at least in the eyes of those who actually know me)

First off Ive never called you an ogre, I do dispise your general political drift though given that your moral outlook and alarm about the decline of the world in general and GB specifically seems to be lifted directly fromt he leader articles in the Daily Mail.

Secondly the number of friends and and granchildren you have is meaningless. Fred West had friends and grandchildren, Im not comparing you to a mass murderer, but having friends and grandchildren proves very little about the type of person you are.

Much as your posts annoy me and your views often repulse me I dont have a problem and actually enjoy having you around.

one love

Hello Blicky,

Let's agree that we are both fairly decent blokes , who disgaree at times.

Re the Sikhs and catholic adoption - the point I was trying to make was nothing to do with Gays per se, simply to point out that on grounds of religion the Sikhs got permanent exemption from wearing a crash helmet because their religion demands a turban. The catholics had a similar ( not exactly though ) claim for exemption. I wasn't taking that analogy further.

Of course I don't mind you ( or anyone ) getting pee'd of at my thoughts and posts. If I did I would have to give up on HooToo !, but you must remember that "ones man's meat is another man's poison", as the sayiing goes. Neither you nor I have the monopoly 'the right idea'. We all post and expect , or hope for agreement, If we get 'bricked' we have to re-think our ideas - the real benefit of posting?

Views in general Well Blicky , you know my age and history - I don't try to hide it. That means that I am bound to bring to the Forum some ideas based on the way life 'used to be' , and to regret the passing of some things that were part off my life. Due credit to you though, you once got heated about my reaction to 'hoodies' and their ilk. You were right! I was doing an SWL, and generalising from personal experience , and that was wrong.

I had to laugh at your Fred West had granchildren - that was a good hit, but I was only trying to show that I wasn't a sad old git sat nursing a pint in the pub corner, with no one to talk too !

Lastly, although I am basically a conservative by inclination, I haven't read the Daily Hate for about 4 years now, it is far too nastily right wing for me. ( must be getting mellow ) I read the Gruniad or Indy.

I wont challange your sun and earth point, because I think we may argue unnecessarily about a 'point' . There are occasions when I think you get the wrong end of a stick - it is as if we are using the same magntic needle and I am seeing north while you see south - the separation isn't very great but we head in different directions thus widening the gap.

For my part I am prepared to think my posts through a little more. For your part would you tone down the 'namecalling' aspect of some of yours ?

I reckon we could exist in better harmony if we meet part way.

Novo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7588662.stm

Hi Blicky,

I can't imagine why you thought of me when you read that article, though I admit to almost recognising the street!

Interesting though , I'll give you that - although financially we seem to heading back there!!


Novo