TOT (BBC bias) compare and contrast

Adrian wrote:

For crying out loud. I don't want programmes with bias! I want
programmes that are balanced, or at least a balance of programmes.

Which is what there is now.

Tell me of a BBC programme that has been critical of AGW.


Just one leetle programme every now and then expressing a view contrary
to the BBC agenda would be so refreshing.

So, yes, you want programmes that agree with your bias.

The implication being that you agree that the BBC is biased.

Bill

Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:40:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


Well she would wouldn't she?

Somebody I know used to know HH quite well. She has little doubt that HH
is telling the truth.

I've only met HH briefly. She was - frankly - loathsome, rude and self-
obsessed. But I'm in no doubt that this is all an utterly ridiculous
witch-hunt over nothing.

To my astonishment, at each of my meetings with Arthur Scargill I have
found him to be quite charming. I exclude the first meeting because the
circumstances were enough to make a saint turn nasty.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Unfortunately there are people who believe that, so it doesn't make life
any easier to be known as gay. That applies both to those who are gay
and those who 'once were'.

You've found a 'cure' have you? Must have been in The Mail. The paper who
was pleased when 'they' thought a 'gay gene' had been found as it would
allow the mother to abort the child.


Oh for goodness' sake! There are lots of people who change their
lifestyle and 'once were' gay. I don't know whether their actual
sexuality has drifted, somehow I doubt it.

Bill

On 27/02/2014 01:58, in article , "Bill
Wright" wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Unfortunately there are people who believe that, so it doesn't make life
any easier to be known as gay. That applies both to those who are gay
and those who 'once were'.

You've found a 'cure' have you? Must have been in The Mail. The paper who
was pleased when 'they' thought a 'gay gene' had been found as it would
allow the mother to abort the child.


Oh for goodness' sake! There are lots of people who change their
lifestyle and 'once were' gay.

No, there aren't.

I don't know whether their actual
sexuality has drifted, somehow I doubt it.

So in what way is it 'once'?
Can you at least try to think coherently?

--
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use surname & forename;

On 27/02/2014 01:46, in article , "Bill Wright"
wrote:

Adrian wrote:

No, we have to do what the hell we want to do, rather than what we think
anybody else wants us to do - and anybody who thinks any the less of us
for doing it can quite frankly go and shove their heads up their own
arses.

That's fine, except think what happens in the mind of a
boy who finds that as well as his feelings for girls he has feelings for
boys as well. The relaity might be that these feelings are nowhere near
as strong as his hetero feelings, but even so they loom very large in
his head. "I'm gay! Oh well, if I'm gay I'd better get on with it!"

You are living in a fantasy world.

I don't have anti-gay feelings.

I do not not suspect you of such.
I most vehemently suspect you of having the arrogance to believe that you
know what is right for other people, better than they do themselves.
(A typical hetty trait, in this domain of discussion.)

It is patronising and demeaning.

Best to just shut up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

--
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use surname & forename;

Bill Findlay wrote:
On 26/02/2014 20:41, in article , "Bill
Wright" wrote:

However I'm not sure that it would be
right to allow a mature 20 year-old, settled in his sexuality, to seduce
an immature 16 year-old who might if left alone decide that his hetero
side was dominant, and might by the age of 18 or 19 be very glad he had
not embarked on a homosexual life.

And what of a 16 year old seduced into a hetty life only to realize, after a
marriage and kids, that he was fooling himself the whole time, was gay & had
made the worst mistake of his life - affecting not only him but his family?

Do you want to ban that as well?

I'm sure a lot of lads just can't face the (real or imagined)
consequences of coming out, so do what you suggest, and force themselves
into a hetero relationship. It was ever thus. Let's be honest, at that
age you can generally act the part in bed no matter what. Even if your
partner doesn't turn you on all that much, your own body can be a
substitute focus for your desire. But you make a good point. Failure to
accept your sexuality can lead to devastating consequences, either way.

I say 'can' because oddly I think many couples do survive this. 'Coming
out to your wife' must be interesting. I gather wives are more concerned
about fidelity than orientation however.

And I'm sure that genuinely bisexual people are more
likely to find happiness with a hetero lifestyle.

Genuinely bisexual people are more likely to find happiness with someone
they love, regardless of the partner's sex.

Absolutely. Although all other things being equal, the ability to have
kids, the happy acceptance by family and friends, public displays of
affection, are all likely to be easier in a hetero relationship. And
pragmatically that has to be a plus. I know it sticks in your craw. It
sticks in mine. But that's the real world. Having said that, love
conquers all.

I'd say if you're bi and the person you find happens to be of your sex,
then go for it, and accept the consequences. Isn't that what Gay Pride
is all about?


You really are pretty clueless abou this, Bill.

I don't think so. Remember I'm in South Yorkshire.


Anyone reading this
who is in an entirely satisfactory gay relationship please don't take
that the wrong way. It's a generalisation only.

Do you seriously expect that to absolve you from criticism??

Yes I do.

Bill

Bill Findlay wrote:

Oh for goodness' sake! There are lots of people who change their
lifestyle and 'once were' gay.

No, there aren't.

There are! Blimey I know four!
1. Daughter of local manual worker and good friend of mine, went off the
rails a bit, bit of a fat ugly lass to be honest, declared she was
lesbian, went to live with another fat ugly lass. They were talking
about a civil partnership at one stage but it cooled off and she came
home to mum. Two years later she has a tattoo (sent us a picture; I told
her off) a boyfriend, and a baby.
2. A relation of ours, female. Went to live in London. Trained as a
singer. We knew she was gay and it was just accepted in the family and
not thought about much. She brought her partner to weddings and
funerals. But apparently singing wasn't much called for in London in
2008 so she reappeared in King's Lynn and commenced work at a
supermarket. Did well, became a manager on £40k. Now living in Wisbech
with a husband. Has had a miscarriage, now trying hard.
3. Long term male gay relationship, one died, the other married a female
after about four years. I don't actually know if the relationship is sexual.
4. Female xxxxxxx, senior enough to be on telly now and then, a real
looker, big bust-up with partner, very difficult as they jointly owned
the cottage and properties they rented out and also a little business
(she set it up, partner ran it). Tears. Nothing for ten years then
bugger me she's shacked up with a kid I knew at school, 15 years her
senior and a wastrel to boot! Sorry about the x's, but I realise it was
googleable otherwise.


I don't know whether their actual
sexuality has drifted, somehow I doubt it.

So in what way is it 'once'?
Can you at least try to think coherently?

Oh come on. Don't get mad.

Bill

Bill Findlay wrote:

I most vehemently suspect you of having the arrogance to believe that you
know what is right for other people, better than they do themselves.
(A typical hetty trait, in this domain of discussion.)

It is patronising and demeaning.

Best to just shut up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.


I realise that what I've said isn't what you want to hear.

Bill

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 01:51:06 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

For crying out loud. I don't want programmes with bias! I want
programmes that are balanced, or at least a balance of programmes.

Which is what there is now.

Tell me of a BBC programme that has been critical of AGW.

There are frequently critics interviewed on programmes.
Just one, very recent, example...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...Lawson-denies-
floods-are-linked-to-climate-change.html

Just one leetle programme every now and then expressing a view
contrary to the BBC agenda would be so refreshing.

So, yes, you want programmes that agree with your bias.

The implication being that you agree that the BBC is biased.

You're not very bright, are you?

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 01:46:36 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

No, we have to do what the hell we want to do, rather than what we
think anybody else wants us to do - and anybody who thinks any the less
of us for doing it can quite frankly go and shove their heads up their
own arses.

In the sense that people sometimes 'live a lie', not coming out when
they should, I absolutely agree. But I'm talking specifically about boys
in their mid-teens here, who could be misled by the apparently liberal
attitudes currently prevailing to imagine that there is no downside to
coming out.

The very fact that you think people feel they need to "come out" strongly
implies that you believe homosexuality to be inferior, and that people
need to admit to it.

You certainly don't seem to like the idea that people might veer
between being predominantly gay or straight.

Are you reading the same thread as me?

Are you serious? Honestly? Are you actually serious? Do you demand a
verifiable, full sexual history from all of your acquaintances?

I don't, no.

Then how the hell do you know what somebody may or may not have done in
the dim and distant past? But, somehow, you think it will negatively
affect their future. In whose eyes?

Not everyone lives a jolly metropolitan life. Some people live in the
same town all their lives. Some of us in our sixties still have a circle
of friends from our teenage years. Some people work in the same factory
or office all their lives.

I know that many people do up sticks and move to another town because of
their social/sexual situation, but doesn't that just prove my point?

Quite the opposite. It proves my point about your prejudices.

At a rough guess, I can think of more of my friends who are currently
in gay relationships but have previously been in (usually unhappy)
straight ones than vice versa.

Yes, because social pressures still push bisexuals and even gay men into
(apparently) heterosexual relationships.

Indeed. So why the hell are you suggesting that people should have their
sexuality repressed early, because it's so hard to "live down" young
experimentation?