|
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:14:45 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White"
wrote: now let me get this straight...you reject the charges the BBC itself admitted it's guilty of, yet say you're not defending the BBC. I haven't rejected charges against the BBC, nor commented regarding the charges or about the Hutton inquiry and the mess the BBC is in. and that, as they say, is the ballgame... I find the obsession with the BBC boring, because BBC has become less and less significant in the big picture of the world, and that will continue, don't you agree? no, i don't. the BBC has 150,000,000 listeners worldwide, not counting its domestic audience, and its TV programs here in the states. it's not as big as it used to be, but it's still influential. and when it lies, it gives credence to lies. forcing it to admit its bias, as the hutton report did, means that the far left, in spite of the BBC's hiring of al jazeera newscasters, will be called on its lies about the united states. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:10:31 +0300, Noel
wrote: On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:12:18 GMT, (Bob) wrote: the fact you seem reluctant to admit, as a revisionist leftie, is that the BBC itself both admitted it was wrong AND apologized. gilligan lied. that's why he resigned. Of course, that's the spin a right-wing ****tard like you would put on it. Yes, he resigned, but never admitted to lying. so he's an unrepentent liar. oh. by the way. his boss's resigned, too. as to being right wing, i know you far lefties have a fundamentalist belief that anyone who doesn't believe that uncle joe stalin was a great guy is a '****tard', but we liberals believe in freedom, not socialist paradise like you lefties.\ the executives covered for his lie. No, they did not. This is another baseless assumption being made by a right-wing reactionary twit who doesn't even live in the country in question/ really? then why did his boss's resign? because they were tired of their jobs? and that's the end of the story. unless you can show me where the BBC is lying when it said it lied, you got a problem. If you can show a BBC statement with the word 'lie' in it? yeah. in the fact that all the guilty parties no longer work at the BBC. that's a pretty good indication, oh, great, revisionist leftie puppet --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:37:45 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White"
wrote: With BILLIONS of people in the world 150 million is not a big number, Bob. uh, dont keep up with shortwave much, do you? Wrong again, Bob. I use an RX320 in the house, apparently you never actually USE these radios... BBC WS SW and MW listeners were at 115 million in 2002, DOWN 9 MILLION from 124 million in 2001. gee. big deal. that's pretty much what i said. so you start by agreeing with me... So, shortwave isn't going to help in the long run. how many BBC lies in the 'long run'? As with passenger trains and, blimps, Bob, SW is in declining in the big picture. how many lies in the 'big picture'? the BBC's audience is primarily 3rd world. They claim their audience is the entire world-- what they call "opinion formers" and "decision makers" all over the world. For example: "What is important in the States is what type of listener we're getting," says Mr. Byford. ahem. let me point out a simple fact: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in your pompous bloviating, didnt you? BBC's Indian SW audience has plummetted. They're moving rapidly to TV, as will the rest of the 3rd world in a few more years. as i said, you dont listen to shortwave or the BBC much... --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
BBC WS SW and MW listeners were at 115 million in 2002, DOWN 9 MILLION from 124 million in 2001. gee. big deal. that's pretty much what i said. so you start by agreeing with me... Pretty much? -- ROTFL! You said you didn't agree that BBC has become less and less significant in the big picture of the world. so you start by agreeing with me... Just wondering what exactly it takes to get to Planet Bob. --- On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:47:18 GMT, (Bob) wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:37:45 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White" wrote: With BILLIONS of people in the world 150 million is not a big number, Bob. uh, dont keep up with shortwave much, do you? Wrong again, Bob. I use an RX320 in the house, apparently you never actually USE these radios... BBC WS SW and MW listeners were at 115 million in 2002, DOWN 9 MILLION from 124 million in 2001. gee. big deal. that's pretty much what i said. so you start by agreeing with me... So, shortwave isn't going to help in the long run. how many BBC lies in the 'long run'? As with passenger trains and, blimps, Bob, SW is in declining in the big picture. how many lies in the 'big picture'? the BBC's audience is primarily 3rd world. They claim their audience is the entire world-- what they call "opinion formers" and "decision makers" all over the world. For example: "What is important in the States is what type of listener we're getting," says Mr. Byford. ahem. let me point out a simple fact: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in your pompous bloviating, didnt you? BBC's Indian SW audience has plummetted. They're moving rapidly to TV, as will the rest of the 3rd world in a few more years. as i said, you dont listen to shortwave or the BBC much... --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
"What is important in the States is what type of listener
we're getting," says Mr. Byford. ahem. let me point out a simple fact: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in Mark Byford's statement actually came AFTER the BBC had decided to stop direct SW to USA. He made lots of comments on the fact that they believed FM rebroadcast of BBC was reaching the right target, and that was one of them. They even claimed that their US audience numbers were increasing due to listeners on FM. --- On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:47:18 GMT, (Bob) wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:37:45 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White" wrote: With BILLIONS of people in the world 150 million is not a big number, Bob. uh, dont keep up with shortwave much, do you? Wrong again, Bob. I use an RX320 in the house, apparently you never actually USE these radios... BBC WS SW and MW listeners were at 115 million in 2002, DOWN 9 MILLION from 124 million in 2001. gee. big deal. that's pretty much what i said. so you start by agreeing with me... So, shortwave isn't going to help in the long run. how many BBC lies in the 'long run'? As with passenger trains and, blimps, Bob, SW is in declining in the big picture. how many lies in the 'big picture'? the BBC's audience is primarily 3rd world. They claim their audience is the entire world-- what they call "opinion formers" and "decision makers" all over the world. For example: "What is important in the States is what type of listener we're getting," says Mr. Byford. ahem. let me point out a simple fact: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in your pompous bloviating, didnt you? BBC's Indian SW audience has plummetted. They're moving rapidly to TV, as will the rest of the 3rd world in a few more years. as i said, you dont listen to shortwave or the BBC much... --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in
your pompous bloviating, didnt you? Pompous Bloviating... ROTFL! PLEASE give me some more easy shots like that redundancy, Bob! On Planet Earth, it's easy to recognize that folks who use words like "Bloviating" are... POMPOUS! But, on Planet Bob, you're oblivious! ROTFLMAO! --- On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:47:18 GMT, (Bob) wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:37:45 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White" wrote: With BILLIONS of people in the world 150 million is not a big number, Bob. uh, dont keep up with shortwave much, do you? Wrong again, Bob. I use an RX320 in the house, apparently you never actually USE these radios... BBC WS SW and MW listeners were at 115 million in 2002, DOWN 9 MILLION from 124 million in 2001. gee. big deal. that's pretty much what i said. so you start by agreeing with me... So, shortwave isn't going to help in the long run. how many BBC lies in the 'long run'? As with passenger trains and, blimps, Bob, SW is in declining in the big picture. how many lies in the 'big picture'? the BBC's audience is primarily 3rd world. They claim their audience is the entire world-- what they call "opinion formers" and "decision makers" all over the world. For example: "What is important in the States is what type of listener we're getting," says Mr. Byford. ahem. let me point out a simple fact: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in your pompous bloviating, didnt you? BBC's Indian SW audience has plummetted. They're moving rapidly to TV, as will the rest of the 3rd world in a few more years. as i said, you dont listen to shortwave or the BBC much... --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:32:47 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White"
wrote: BBC WS SW and MW listeners were at 115 million in 2002, DOWN 9 MILLION from 124 million in 2001. gee. big deal. that's pretty much what i said. so you start by agreeing with me... Pretty much? -- ROTFL! You said you didn't agree that BBC has become less and less significant in the big picture of the world. what is 'less significant' in a world where the BBC is the leader? and how many lies in 'less significant'. you seem reluctant to admit what the BBC itself admitted...it lied. so you start by agreeing with me... Just wondering what exactly it takes to get to Planet Bob. says the last holdout against the BBC's self admitted lies. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:32:48 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White"
wrote: "What is important in the States is what type of listener we're getting," says Mr. Byford. ahem. let me point out a simple fact: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in Mark Byford's statement actually came AFTER the BBC had decided to stop direct SW to USA. if you'll permit to say: Bull****. the BBC quit broadcasting to NA several years ago. He made lots of comments on the fact that they believed FM rebroadcast of BBC was reaching the right target, and that was one of them. They even claimed that their US audience numbers were increasing due to listeners on FM. which had zip to do with the thread at all. the BBC does not use FM on shortwave. those of us who DO shortwave kinda know that... --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:32:50 -0500, "W G (Geoff) White"
wrote: the BBC does not even broadcast to north america. kinda forgot that in your pompous bloviating, didnt you? Pompous Bloviating... ROTFL! PLEASE give me some more easy shots like that redundancy, Bob! On Planet Earth, it's easy to recognize that folks who use words like "Bloviating" are... POMPOUS! But, on Planet Bob, you're oblivious! ROTFLMAO! dontcha love it when guys who are too stupid to know that the BBC lied cant even go to dictionary.com and read: blo·vi·ate To discourse at length in a pompous OR boastful manner (emphasis added) in your rather sorry state, lacking all credibility, your boastfulness AND pompousity are a poor substitute for your pathetic knowledge...or lack thereof...of any aspect of the BBC, shortwave, or international broadcasting. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com