In article <ssust0$u5q$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Recently, some months after it was broadcast, I've got around to
> watching Brian Cox's "Universe", and jeez, what an interminable
> over-produced funereal invocation of boredom - music so loud you can't
> hear his mumbling, presumably into a mask; what he had to say spun out
> over such long time-filling intervals that you forget the beginning of
> the sentence by the time he reaches the end; far too many locations
> pointlessly visited; little or SFA new information imparted.

I'm inclined to agree. I got bored with the "Universe" series and jept
skipping forwards to get to the next pretty animations as the narration
said so little.

Whereas I have enjoyed the recent 'Attenborough' progs. e.g. the ones about
ancient animals.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j5gamnFiefmU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago), Light
> Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score Music (
> given up long ago by R2)

However in fairness, I've found that the long morning programme on R3
covers a surprisingly large range of types of music. Quite a good way to
encounter the unenxpected in with the familiar.

But yes, Jazz, 'World' music, light/film, etc are lacking. However they may
feel that demographic has abandoned conventional radio anyway.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <XnsAE2ED791F9B137B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.

That is true if your intention is to remain only partially informed
about what is happening in the world. If you don't wish to know what
main stream media isn't telling you then that policy works well.

That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on there,
there is but even if you don't already know who to trust you quickly
learn. Who ends up being right and who is consistently wrong?

> It is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
> listening.

Well I do very little talking at all there but I do read a lot and
have a list of people who I trust based on my experience of them and
they are the ones I "follow".

The "filtering" and deception of MSM on the subject of protests have
been a recent confirmation of agenda bias. If mentioned at all, (and
they only do that if they can't avoid doing so) the numbers
estimations are pure deception. Twitter has video footage showing
huge numbers protesting, orders of magnitude higher than the our
agenda driven BBC will ever admit.

So yes, if you wish to diet on propaganda without balance don't look
anywhere else including twitter. It's only when you look outside that
you see the bias, I'm now convinced people love living in a world
fully filtered and controlled and they're not interested in balance
or the truth.

Bob.

Java Jive wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view) as GB
>> News?   And LBC too?
>
> The links to any of these that I can recall being posted here have not exactly
> been examples of fair and unbiased programming

LBC handles bias by offering an assortment of presenters, each of who is allowed
to express themselves without following a defined narrative for the station,
they have something to annoy everybody!

Times Radio handles it by all programmes being relatively bland and
unopinionated, never pressing politicians for actual answers, I presume they
tell presenters to rein-in their opinions, e.g. when Ayesha Hazarika used to
occasionally appear on LBC she could wind me up very easily, so I didn't relish
her moving to Times Radio, but actually she's quite amusing and not hardline at
all now.

> but it's possible my memory may be at fault - we see so much crud linked
> here that it becomes difficult to remember one example from another.

You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to them
*as* *stations* rather than just snippets.

On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
> them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.

Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
talk radio station?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 30/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <XnsAE2ED791F9B137B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.
>
> That is true if your intention is to remain only partially informed
> about what is happening in the world. If you don't wish to know what
> main stream media isn't telling you then that policy works well.

The point she is making is precisely that, by and large, main stream
media tells you all you actually need to know. Despite your endless
failed absurd attemnts to prove the contrary, Shitter is not a reliable
news source.

> That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on there,
> there is but even if you don't already know who to trust you quickly
> learn. Who ends up being right and who is consistently wrong?

Here, that is particularly easy to answer, you are consistently wrong,
and almost anyone else who argues with you is nearly always right.

>> It is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
>> listening.
>
> Well I do very little talking at all there but I do read a lot and
> have a list of people who I trust based on my experience of them and
> they are the ones I "follow".

Says the lemming while charging over the psychological cliff.

> The "filtering" and deception of MSM on the subject of protests have
> been a recent confirmation of agenda bias. If mentioned at all, (and
> they only do that if they can't avoid doing so) the numbers
> estimations are pure deception. Twitter has video footage showing
> huge numbers protesting, orders of magnitude higher than the our
> agenda driven BBC will ever admit.

Doubtless this - if anyone could be arsed to investigate it whereas I
doubt anyone will precisely because it's you that is claiming it -
will turn out like the claims of 'many' demonstrations on YouTube, which
I counted up and showed that most referred to the same few demos, most
of which were in countries with a known problem of right-wing fake news,
didn't involve the numbers of people claimed, and were covered by main
stream media anyway.

> So yes, if you wish to diet on propaganda without balance don't look
> anywhere else including twitter. It's only when you look outside that
> you see the bias, I'm now convinced people love living in a world
> fully filtered and controlled and they're not interested in balance
> or the truth.

In terms of volume of misinformation and fake news spouted, you're the
worst propagandist here by far.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
>> them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
>
> Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
> talk radio station?
>

You might if you spent less time on here :)

On 30/01/2022 07:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 20:03:30 +0000, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't subscribe to any social media, because I have never seen the
>> point in telling the world what they can manage without.
>
> What's usenet then?
>
> Rod.

Something I use but haven't subscribed to.

Jim

On 10:33 30 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE2ED791F9B137B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything.
>
> That is true if your intention is to remain only partially informed
> about what is happening in the world. If you don't wish to know what
> main stream media isn't telling you then that policy works well.
>
> That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on there,
> there is but even if you don't already know who to trust you quickly
> learn. Who ends up being right and who is consistently wrong?
>
>> It is full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is
>> listening.
>
> Well I do very little talking at all there but I do read a lot and
> have a list of people who I trust based on my experience of them and
> they are the ones I "follow".
>
> The "filtering" and deception of MSM on the subject of protests have
> been a recent confirmation of agenda bias. If mentioned at all, (and
> they only do that if they can't avoid doing so) the numbers
> estimations are pure deception. Twitter has video footage showing
> huge numbers protesting, orders of magnitude higher than the our
> agenda driven BBC will ever admit.
>
> So yes, if you wish to diet on propaganda without balance don't look
> anywhere else including twitter. It's only when you look outside that
> you see the bias, I'm now convinced people love living in a world
> fully filtered and controlled and they're not interested in balance
> or the truth.
>
> Bob.

"Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets posted to
Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget of value but you
have to wade through a sewer to get to it. It is like being in a drunken
pub or crowded market where everyone is talking and shouting at once but
most of it is nonsense.

Admittedly, once in a while something sensible gets said -- such as posts
by @statsjamie. Twitter is useful for simple lookups of a statement
released by someone but as a place to learn or discuss things it is IMHO
fruitless.

Twitter is simply not worth the effort unless you want to spend hours at a
pastime with little to show for it other than chat with "friends". Not
that there is much to later show for your efforts because Twitter obscures
historical Tweets by making them hard to search,

Twitter also suffers from the "echo chamber effect" in which people follow
others who follow yet others and between themselves they form a self-
contained and self-reinforcing bubble of understanding (the echo chamber).
However the echo chamber can't spot it's own delusions which it is prone
to by being isolated from a wider reality.

Rather than plough through each opinion on Twitter to form a picture about
a specific topic, I suggest to Roderick it would be more efficient to go
to sites where Twitter's vox pop clamour has been digested and summarised.

If the mainstream media will does not cover your specific interests (such
as some march or another) then there are plenty of news sites which will
do. It seems very inefficient to go into Twitter's melee for a balanced
picture.

So coming back to Roderick's comment that he may soon feel required to use
Twitter, I suggest all that's needed it to click the odd Twitter link
provided in other media. In actual fact, the content of the linked Tweet
is inevitably repeated verbatim in the news story which references it and
clicking isn't actually necessary although it may take you to a
(pointless) video not seen elsewhere.

There is no point in the average person posting to Twitter. "MB" did
suggest a public message to an organisation may get more attention there.
That could workbut but it needs you to keep going back to check for
responses.

In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
> posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
> of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.

Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?

Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to ignore.

But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
it's really junk.

Bob.

On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>> You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
>>> them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
>>
>> Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
>> talk radio station?
>
> You might if you spent less time on here :)

I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
everyone's time :-(

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 30/01/2022 14:54, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
>> posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
>> of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
>
> Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?

That's easy, anything you follow, and a load of other crap as well.

> Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to ignore.

If only you would, sadly, no-one here can see any sign of that happening
anytime soon.

> But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
> position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
> it's really junk.

Beams and motes - *APPLY* those principles to *YOURSELF* before
preaching them parrot-fashion to others.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually listening to
>>>> them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
>>> talk radio station?
>>
>> You might if you spent less time on here :)
>
> I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
> everyone's time :-(
>

I fear you are creating a Streisand Effect.

On 30/01/2022 15:30, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
>>>> talk radio station?
>>>
>>> You might if you spent less time on here :)
>>
>> I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
>> everyone's time :-(
>
> I fear you are creating a Streisand Effect.

Possibly, but in the end it's a battle that actually they can't win,
and, although I accept that it may take a long time for me to win if
they persist in being disruptive, there are precedents for them to think
about.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14:54 30 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
>> posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
>> of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
>
> Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?
>
> Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to ignore.
>
> But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
> position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
> it's really junk.
>
>
> Bob.

Bob, in my reply to you I used the same phrase you chose ("junk and
misinformation") to avoid your disagreement with it. So it means what
you intended it to mean and I have gone along with that. You wrote
this:

"That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on there"

From your message: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164355901000

On 15:04 30 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:

> On 30/01/2022 14:54, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsAE2F92C37BAB537B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets
>>> posted to Twitter to make it useful. There will be the odd nugget
>>> of value but you have to wade through a sewer to get to it.
>>
>> Well of course the first question is what defines "junk"?
>
> That's easy, anything you follow, and a load of other crap as well.
>
>> Much can be junk I agree but you learn who to read and who to
>> ignore.
>
> If only you would, sadly, no-one here can see any sign of that
> happening anytime soon.
>
>> But I suspect you mark as junk items that simply disagree with your
>> position or current narrative and I'm sorry but that doesn't mean
>> it's really junk.
>
> Beams and motes - *APPLY* those principles to *YOURSELF* before
> preaching them parrot-fashion to others.

The phrase "junk and misinformation" which I used was taken from Bob's
earlier post.

On 30/01/2022 14:58, Java Jive wrote:
> On 30/01/2022 12:40, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/01/2022 10:39, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You shouldn't judge entire radio stations without actually
>>>> listening to
>>>> them *as* *stations* rather than just snippets.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but who's got the time and the reason to listen to yet another
>>> talk radio station?
>>
>> You might if you spent less time on here :)
>
> I might if certain others here stopped posting crap that wastes
> everyone's time :-(
>
I don't think anyone's time is wasted by anything said in this tiny tiny
tiny corner of t'internet

Unless something catches my eye in particular, I don't generally click
on much in the off topic threads, or once the on topic threads drift
into something I don't find interesting.

I'm as guilty as many for veering threads off topic

In article <XnsAE2FA4E58D52D37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob, in my reply to you I used the same phrase you chose ("junk and
> misinformation") to avoid your disagreement with it. So it means
> what you intended it to mean and I have gone along with that. You
> wrote this:

> "That's not to say that there isn't junk and misinformation on
> there"
>
> From your message: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164355901000

I don't deny it it. But I also said that I decide who I read and who
has proved to be unreliable and consequently I find I get good
consistent information and I don't reject twitter as a waste of time.

Bob.

On 30/01/2022 14:25, Pamela wrote:
>
> There is no point in the average person posting to Twitter. "MB" did
> suggest a public message to an organisation may get more attention there.
> That could workbut but it needs you to keep going back to check for
> responses.
I find Twitter is a bit like wandering around a large city. Stay on the
main streets, and look at (in other words, follow) tweets from trusted
and well balanced individuals or organisations (I only follow 107 in
total) and all is fine, and enjoyable. However looking beyond a couple
of replies to one of your 'followee's ' tweets, and it's like turning
off that main street, into some dodgy alleyway inhabited by idiots (or
worse).
The further you go, the worse it becomes.

I generally only Tweet if it's something utterly anoraky or trivial, (or
to have a polite moan about bad service I've received somewhere)

On 16:33 30 Jan 2022, Mark Carver said:

> On 30/01/2022 14:25, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> There is no point in the average person posting to Twitter. "MB" did
>> suggest a public message to an organisation may get more attention
>> there. That could workbut but it needs you to keep going back to
>> check for responses.
>
> I find Twitter is a bit like wandering around a large city. Stay on
> the main streets, and look at (in other words, follow) tweets from
> trusted and well balanced individuals or organisations (I only follow
> 107 in total) and all is fine, and enjoyable. However looking beyond
> a couple of replies to one of your 'followee's ' tweets, and it's
> like turning off that main street, into some dodgy alleyway inhabited
> by idiots (or worse).
>
> The further you go, the worse it becomes.
>
> I generally only Tweet if it's something utterly anoraky or trivial,
> (or to have a polite moan about bad service I've received somewhere)

The "big city" analogy for Twitter is quite good in one respect.

When I used to work in London travelling by Tube or sometimes bus was a
great leveller. Chief executives, senior managers and company workers
would have to take (or fight for) their seat alongside beggars and
weirdos.

That's not very different to Twitter, where expert opinion gets jostled
and challenged by ill-informed crazies who have "done their own
research".

On Twitter everyone gets a soapbox-- including those who have nothing
to say and want to say it all the time.

Of course other social platforms have their own quirks but there's a
misleading sense about references to Twitter that you have to be there
to keep up with the latest trends. Not so much with Facebook.

On 30/01/2022 14:25, Pamela wrote:
> "Junk and misinformation" is too large a proportion of what gets posted to
> Twitter to make it useful.

Sometimes it is possible to find out what is going on somewhere when
there is little information getting out. Either the dreaded "police
incident" or just a report of a road accident with vague details given
but often someone will have Tweeted something from the location. But
you have to be careful, I can remember one evening there were lots of
Tweets about an explosion being heard in the centre of Manchester but
despite many peopleclaiming to have heard it, it was all a false alarm.

> I find Twitter is a bit like wandering around a large city.

Anyone know why it has recently got more difficult to block someone of
Twitter. It used to be a quick RIght Click and you got the option to
Block or Mute someone but that option often does not appear now.

On 30/01/2022 16:30, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> I don't deny it it. But I also said that I decide who I read and who
> has proved to be unreliable and consequently I find I get good
> consistent information and I don't reject twitter as a waste of time.

Here, we have yet to see any *EVIDENCE* at all that you ever get good
information out of Shitter.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <j5h6vaFng92U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

> I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate
> change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
> different amelioration methods,is allowed.

They also regard it as settled in terms of science that the Earth orbits
the Sun.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 29/01/2022 21:11, Pamela wrote:
> On 11:15 29 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

>> I can honestly say I've never subscribed to Twitter. I wonder how
>> long it will be possible to admit to being proud of that? The
>> rambling subliterate pronouncements typical of its users appear to be
>> something of a mainstay of some news outlets, which simply print
>> screeds of it unedited on their websites, as if it were some sort of
>> official policy or holy writ. Even the name doesn't sound serious.

> You can safely stay away from Twitter and will not miss anything. It is
> full of people tweeting away but almost no one there is listening. It's
> not really like Usenet or web-based forums. Reading twitter is like
> listening to a field full of grasshoppers and about as informative,
> unless you regularly spend time there digging very deeply.

How about Reddit? Is that useable? How is it used? I've got accounts
with Twitter and Reddit, but only because they offered to sign me up
using my Google account when I happened to access a link to them with a
browser that was logged into Google.

--
Max Demian