On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:54:13 -0700, running dogg wrote:

Igor Reameas Rothschild wrote:


"Li-Changchun" wrote in message
...
Tory fury as BBC sends hecklers to bait Howard
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging
general election row after it
admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones
and sending them into a
campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.
The BBC has turned into a Socialist leftwing propaganda machine.

Not exactly. This row has little to do with politics per-se!

Recently the BBC announced staff reductions of close to 28%
including cutbacks of some rather popular TV and Radio
programmes in the UK. (..to put it in a way that you Americans
would understand, it would be as if several USA based TV
networks announced that they were going to broadcast
only 50% of all Baseball and Football games and replace what was
lost with Infomercials)

This is why so many are upset over BBC Management.

They have sacrificed programme content for greater
financial profits at the expense of their viewers and listeners.

I would gather if the same were done in the USA as has
been done in the UK, that a general insurrection and
revolution would no doubt ensue shortly thereafter..


Monday Night Football has been moved from ABC, which is a broadcast
network that can be received in most areas with an antenna, to ESPN,
which is on cable TV only, read expen$ive subscription fees. So far no
insurrections have been noted. I know that the same megacorporation owns
both ABC and ESPN, and that over the air TV has not been profitable in a
LONG TIME, but still there are some football fans that will not be able
to see the game anymore. But in a country where fans pay outrageous fees
to have 10 sports channels, those few fans don't amount to much.

Yes, BBC Management seems to have no clue about anything, they've been
drastically cutting back the World Service part of their operation to
the point where it can only be heard in the mornings for a few hours and
an hour of news in the evenings in the Americas, and just South America
at that. The point is apparently to cut off shortwave-once the WS's
bread and butter-completely and rely on a network of FM stations.
Unfortunately these FM stations decide when and how much of the BBCWS to
broadcast. If you go to bbcworldservice.com and go to the dialog box
where you can enter your city for programming info, you'll see this.
Enter San Francisco, for example, the nearest Big City to yours truly.
You'll see that the WS gets six hours in the wee hours of the morning
(midnight-6am) and an hour of news at 2pm. A sad substitute for
shortwave, but in North America this is what we're supposed to take.
Many BBC "affiliates" don't even broadcast The World Today or Newshour
but a sanitized news program called "World Affairs" or something
similar.

What's holding you Brits back from getting rid of your government over
this? At least vote Blair out of office, he's quite unpopular for
dragging the UK into Iraq from what I understand. And then there's your
royal family. Name ONE THING it's good for, besides tabloid fodder. Join
the world, become a republic already!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


You can get the World Service, in hifi digital sound, 24 hours a day
on XM satellite radio. The equipment is under $100.

Somebody in this group knows somebody who bought an old sheet metal
radio fo $10,000, on which (if it still works at all) the BBC will
sound like it's going through a Maestro Phase Shifter.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:20:32 GMT, David wrote:

Home Service BBC Three, not the World Service, FWIW)

Well, a lot of BBCWS news programs come from domestic Radio 4 and most
of BBC World (news e.g. on the cable/satellite network BBC America and
on PBS stations) is taken from BBC One.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:15:58 GMT, Joel Rubin
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:20:32 GMT, David wrote:

Home Service BBC Three, not the World Service, FWIW)

Well, a lot of BBCWS news programs come from domestic Radio 4 and most
of BBC World (news e.g. on the cable/satellite network BBC America and
on PBS stations) is taken from BBC One.

It's a resource, not a final arbiter. I reserve that function for
myself. They are biased and I am aware of their bias. I still find
their facts to be real most of the time. I look for corroboration if
it's important to me. I accept nothing at face value.

In article ,
David wrote:
You can get the World Service, in hifi digital sound, 24 hours a day
on XM satellite radio. The equipment is under $100.

I bought my R-1000 on closeout for $300 about 22 years ago.

How much will a 22 year subscription to XM cost?

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:11:05 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
You can get the World Service, in hifi digital sound, 24 hours a day
on XM satellite radio. The equipment is under $100.

I bought my R-1000 on closeout for $300 about 22 years ago.

How much will a 22 year subscription to XM cost?

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

You get what you pay for. You can get the BBC for what...3 or 4 hours
a day (if the Sun ain't flaking out)? Do you really care about the
BBC or are you just trying to be special because you make do with an
obsolete delivery system?

"David" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:11:05 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
You can get the World Service, in hifi digital sound, 24 hours a day
on XM satellite radio. The equipment is under $100.

I bought my R-1000 on closeout for $300 about 22 years ago.

How much will a 22 year subscription to XM cost?

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

You get what you pay for. You can get the BBC for what...3 or 4 hours
a day (if the Sun ain't flaking out)? Do you really care about the
BBC or are you just trying to be special because you make do with an
obsolete delivery system?

There's more to radio than the BBC. You should check it out sometime. You
know, broaden your horizons.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:04:34 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:11:05 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
You can get the World Service, in hifi digital sound, 24 hours a day
on XM satellite radio. The equipment is under $100.

I bought my R-1000 on closeout for $300 about 22 years ago.

How much will a 22 year subscription to XM cost?

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

You get what you pay for. You can get the BBC for what...3 or 4 hours
a day (if the Sun ain't flaking out)? Do you really care about the
BBC or are you just trying to be special because you make do with an
obsolete delivery system?

There's more to radio than the BBC. You should check it out sometime. You
know, broaden your horizons.

True. But that's not what we were talking about.

There're 10,000 audio streams (at least) on the internet, are you
going to try-out each one?

"David" wrote in message
...

There're 10,000 audio streams (at least) on the internet, are you
going to try-out each one?


and 99% of those streams are pure garbage.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:48:05 -0500, "Li-Changchun"
wrote:

"David" wrote in message
.. .

There're 10,000 audio streams (at least) on the internet, are you
going to try-out each one?


and 99% of those streams are pure garbage.

99% of everything is bull****.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

and 99% of those streams are pure garbage.

82% of all statistics are made up.


Do your own sample. You don't need to sample all zillion streams as David
claims.
Simply sample about 20 and report how many of the 20 are not pure garbage.
It is highly likely that all 20 will be garbage and a waste of time that
could have been
spent listening to something truely excellent like John Batchelor.