On his joke of a television programme this evening, Paul Holmes
broadcast a satellite interview, from Washington D.C., with one HARLAN
ULLMAN, an extreme right wing "thinker" and co-creator of "Shock and
Awe", the infamous American version of blitzkrieg. ("Shock and awe
would be intended to expedite Iraq's surrender and ultimately save
lives that could be lost during a long full-scale war", Ullman said
last year, just before the invasion. "Will they be scared witless in
Baghdad? You bet.")
broadcast a satellite interview, from Washington D.C., with one HARLAN
ULLMAN, an extreme right wing "thinker" and co-creator of "Shock and
Awe", the infamous American version of blitzkrieg. ("Shock and awe
would be intended to expedite Iraq's surrender and ultimately save
lives that could be lost during a long full-scale war", Ullman said
last year, just before the invasion. "Will they be scared witless in
Baghdad? You bet.")
It's hardly surprising to see Holmes, a virulent supporter of the rape
of Iraq, having such a reptile as Ullman on his show. However, what
will have disappointed anyone who believes in interviewers actually
asking a few questions, is the fact that Holmes did not even make the
slightest attempt to question, probe or test Ullman's extreme and
provocative statements. Holmes provided a free forum, and was too
timid, too awed or too ill-informed to challenge him at all.
of Iraq, having such a reptile as Ullman on his show. However, what
will have disappointed anyone who believes in interviewers actually
asking a few questions, is the fact that Holmes did not even make the
slightest attempt to question, probe or test Ullman's extreme and
provocative statements. Holmes provided a free forum, and was too
timid, too awed or too ill-informed to challenge him at all.
Ullman, one of the architects of this disaster, is now striking a pose
as a "moderate critic" of the administration's "policy" in Iraq. So
he's not opposing this murderous occupation, instead he's suggesting
"ways to make it better", as if there WERE any.
as a "moderate critic" of the administration's "policy" in Iraq. So
he's not opposing this murderous occupation, instead he's suggesting
"ways to make it better", as if there WERE any.
In spite of his "critic" pose, Ullman's talk on HOLMES was full of
ominous and pompous Bush administration rhetoric: "If we do not
prevail...", "the war on terror", "we must stay the course".
ominous and pompous Bush administration rhetoric: "If we do not
prevail...", "the war on terror", "we must stay the course".
He was, throughout, completely unchecked and unchallenged by his
deeply respectful and awe-struck "interviewer", who merely fed him
patsy questions, probably supplied by Ullman's people before they went
on air.
deeply respectful and awe-struck "interviewer", who merely fed him
patsy questions, probably supplied by Ullman's people before they went
on air.
So Ullman was allowed to ramble on for several minutes, making a
series of astonishing statements that veered between outright lies and
remarkably ignorant generalisations. Without a word of contradiction
by Holmes, Ullman slagged off the Iraqi resistance as "al Qaeda and
jihadist extremists", then compared them to "Lenin and the Bolsheviks
and Hitler and the Nazis". He raved about "suicide tactics", and
accused the resistance of "trying to hijack a religion", and aiming
for "global terror".
series of astonishing statements that veered between outright lies and
remarkably ignorant generalisations. Without a word of contradiction
by Holmes, Ullman slagged off the Iraqi resistance as "al Qaeda and
jihadist extremists", then compared them to "Lenin and the Bolsheviks
and Hitler and the Nazis". He raved about "suicide tactics", and
accused the resistance of "trying to hijack a religion", and aiming
for "global terror".
Then, suddenly, he contradicted himself. "This is not a global war on
terror", he announced.
terror", he announced.
(At this point, Holmes should have said: "It's NOT? But you've just
been saying it IS." What Holmes said was .... nothing.)
been saying it IS." What Holmes said was .... nothing.)
The great military strategist and thinker continued: "This is a fight
against a political and theological ideology that has great political
ambitions. A twenty, or thirty, or forty year struggle is not out of
the question."
against a political and theological ideology that has great political
ambitions. A twenty, or thirty, or forty year struggle is not out of
the question."
"Twenty to forty years"? Some shock. Some awe.
Not that Paul Holmes registered any awareness of the deep irony of
Ullman's words.
..............................
Harlan Ullman, author of "Shock and Awe".....
http://content.gannettonline.
Ullman's words.
..............................
Harlan Ullman, author of "Shock and Awe".....
http://content.gannettonline.
How Harlan Ullman's "Shock and Awe" works. A "terrorist" gets her
due....
http://www.cswnet.com/~dgh/
due....
http://www.cswnet.com/~dgh/
Click here to Reply
 |
Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
realising it)
> It's hardly surprising to see Holmes, a virulent supporter of the rape
> of Iraq, having such a reptile as Ullman on his show. However, what
> will have disappointed anyone who believes in interviewers actually
> asking a few questions, is the fact that Holmes did not even make the
> slightest attempt to question, probe or test Ullman's extreme and
> provocative statements. Holmes provided a free forum.... <snip>
realising it)
> It's hardly surprising to see Holmes, a virulent supporter of the rape
> of Iraq, having such a reptile as Ullman on his show. However, what
> will have disappointed anyone who believes in interviewers actually
> asking a few questions, is the fact that Holmes did not even make the
> slightest attempt to question, probe or test Ullman's extreme and
Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy? I used to watch his
show on TV many years ago (either that or shorties) and I do recall that
he does interject and control the flow of conversation if he wants to.
and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy? I used to watch his
show on TV many years ago (either that or shorties) and I do recall that
he does interject and control the flow of conversation if he wants to.
BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks). In this little battle
I'd say that your the loser.
contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks). In this little battle
I'd say that your the loser.
Murray S
|
Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
> Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
> realising it)
> Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
> realising it)
Don't you worry, I realised it!
>
> Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
> and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
> putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
> opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
> Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
> and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
> putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
> opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
Precisely.
>
> BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
> contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
> not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks).
> BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
> contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
> not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks).
Holmes' "ratings", massaged or not, are irrelevant. It's obvious that
he is immune to criticism and that he can virtually get away with
anything. Since his racist barrage last year, he has hardly modified
his language or behaviour at all. For two and a half hours each
morning, and half an hour in the evening, he is a source of vicious,
insulting, demeaning propaganda. What he says has to be pointed out
occasionally, like when he launched into a ten minute fugue the other
week, insisting that in spite of them torturing and killing Iraqi
civilians, the Americans were "still superior" to the Iraqis.
he is immune to criticism and that he can virtually get away with
anything. Since his racist barrage last year, he has hardly modified
his language or behaviour at all. For two and a half hours each
morning, and half an hour in the evening, he is a source of vicious,
insulting, demeaning propaganda. What he says has to be pointed out
occasionally, like when he launched into a ten minute fugue the other
week, insisting that in spite of them torturing and killing Iraqi
civilians, the Americans were "still superior" to the Iraqis.
>
> In this little battle I'd say that your
> In this little battle I'd say that your
[sic!]
>
> the loser.
> the loser.
It's not a "battle". I'd say that your decision to not watch Holmes
is more the attitude of a "loser". I use his words to condemn him
forever (just do a Google search on "paul holmes") while your only
option seems to be a weary resignation.
is more the attitude of a "loser". I use his words to condemn him
forever (just do a Google search on "paul holmes") while your only
option seems to be a weary resignation.
|
Morrissey Breen says...
> Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
> > Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
> > realising it)
>
> Don't you worry, I realised it!
>
> >
> > Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
> > and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
> > putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
> > opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
>
> Precisely.
>
> >
> > BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
> > contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
> > not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks).
>
> Holmes' "ratings", massaged or not, are irrelevant. It's obvious that
> he is immune to criticism and that he can virtually get away with
> anything. Since his racist barrage last year, he has hardly modified
> his language or behaviour at all. For two and a half hours each
> morning, and half an hour in the evening, he is a source of vicious,
> insulting, demeaning propaganda. What he says has to be pointed out
> occasionally, like when he launched into a ten minute fugue the other
> week, insisting that in spite of them torturing and killing Iraqi
> civilians, the Americans were "still superior" to the Iraqis.
>
That's why almost every so called overseas journalist
contributing to his Newstalk ZB show is a raving Bush bashing
partisan pro -Kerry leftist charlatan.
> Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
> > Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
> > realising it)
>
> Don't you worry, I realised it!
>
> >
> > Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
> > and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
> > putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
> > opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
>
> Precisely.
>
> >
> > BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
> > contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
> > not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks).
>
> Holmes' "ratings", massaged or not, are irrelevant. It's obvious that
> he is immune to criticism and that he can virtually get away with
> anything. Since his racist barrage last year, he has hardly modified
> his language or behaviour at all. For two and a half hours each
> morning, and half an hour in the evening, he is a source of vicious,
> insulting, demeaning propaganda. What he says has to be pointed out
> occasionally, like when he launched into a ten minute fugue the other
> week, insisting that in spite of them torturing and killing Iraqi
> civilians, the Americans were "still superior" to the Iraqis.
>
contributing to his Newstalk ZB show is a raving Bush bashing
partisan pro -Kerry leftist charlatan.
The other morning I heard one of them repeat the stupid lie that
Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film. That's how fucken
hopeless they are, and that's the type of idiot Holmes has on
his show, and if he had the slightest integrity and wasn't a
left wing liberal sponge and propaganda spreader like almost
every other media drop kick, he wouldn't have these wittering
commie wankers within a mile of his show.
Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film. That's how fucken
hopeless they are, and that's the type of idiot Holmes has on
his show, and if he had the slightest integrity and wasn't a
left wing liberal sponge and propaganda spreader like almost
every other media drop kick, he wouldn't have these wittering
commie wankers within a mile of his show.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:01:08 +1200, Redbaiter <nodamn@mail.thanks>
wrote:
>Morrissey Breen says...
>> Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
>> > Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
>> > realising it)
>>
>> Don't you worry, I realised it!
>>
>> >
>> > Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
>> > and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
>> > putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
>> > opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
>>
>> Precisely.
>>
<snip>
>>
>That's why almost every so called overseas journalist
>contributing to his Newstalk ZB show is a raving Bush bashing
>partisan pro -Kerry leftist charlatan.
>
>The other morning I heard one of them repeat the stupid lie that
>Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film. That's how fucken
>hopeless they are, and that's the type of idiot Holmes has on
>his show, and if he had the slightest integrity and wasn't a
>left wing liberal sponge and propaganda spreader like almost
>every other media drop kick, he wouldn't have these wittering
>commie wankers within a mile of his show.
wrote:
>Morrissey Breen says...
>> Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
>> > Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
>> > realising it)
>>
>> Don't you worry, I realised it!
>>
>> >
>> > Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
>> > and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
>> > putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
>> > opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
>>
>> Precisely.
>>
>>
>That's why almost every so called overseas journalist
>contributing to his Newstalk ZB show is a raving Bush bashing
>partisan pro -Kerry leftist charlatan.
>
>The other morning I heard one of them repeat the stupid lie that
>Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film. That's how fucken
>hopeless they are, and that's the type of idiot Holmes has on
>his show, and if he had the slightest integrity and wasn't a
>left wing liberal sponge and propaganda spreader like almost
>every other media drop kick, he wouldn't have these wittering
>commie wankers within a mile of his show.
If Breen finds him biased one way, and Redbaiter finds him biased the
other way, there's a chance he may actually be reporting objectively.
other way, there's a chance he may actually be reporting objectively.
|
On 25 May 2004 03:37:49 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
>On his joke of a television programme this evening, Paul Holmes
>broadcast a satellite interview, from Washington D.C., with one HARLAN
>ULLMAN, an extreme right wing "thinker" and co-creator of "Shock and
>Awe", the infamous American version of blitzkrieg. ("Shock and awe
>would be intended to expedite Iraq's surrender and ultimately save
>lives that could be lost during a long full-scale war", Ullman said
>last year, just before the invasion. "Will they be scared witless in
>Baghdad? You bet.")
>
>It's hardly surprising to see Holmes, a virulent supporter of the rape
>of Iraq, having such a reptile as Ullman on his show. However, what
>will have disappointed anyone who believes in interviewers actually
>asking a few questions, is the fact that Holmes did not even make the
>slightest attempt to question, probe or test Ullman's extreme and
>provocative statements. Holmes provided a free forum, and was too
>timid, too awed or too ill-informed to challenge him at all.
>
>broadcast a satellite interview, from Washington D.C., with one HARLAN
>ULLMAN, an extreme right wing "thinker" and co-creator of "Shock and
>Awe", the infamous American version of blitzkrieg. ("Shock and awe
>would be intended to expedite Iraq's surrender and ultimately save
>lives that could be lost during a long full-scale war", Ullman said
>last year, just before the invasion. "Will they be scared witless in
>Baghdad? You bet.")
>
>It's hardly surprising to see Holmes, a virulent supporter of the rape
>of Iraq, having such a reptile as Ullman on his show. However, what
>will have disappointed anyone who believes in interviewers actually
>asking a few questions, is the fact that Holmes did not even make the
>slightest attempt to question, probe or test Ullman's extreme and
>provocative statements. Holmes provided a free forum, and was too
>timid, too awed or too ill-informed to challenge him at all.
>
Morrissey Breen, a person who wouldn't know objectivity if it leaped
up and bit him in the bum, detects bias in an interview - what a
laugh.
up and bit him in the bum, detects bias in an interview - what a
laugh.
|
Sue Bilstein says...
That is why the left attack Holmes, to try and artificially
compensate for his bias. They know he is a leftist, but not
being far enough left for lunatics like Mowwisey, he must be
portrayed as "left" to compensate for his bias. Just in case the
complaints from the right might start to have some effect. Its
counter weighting.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
- show quoted text -
compensate for his bias. They know he is a leftist, but not
being far enough left for lunatics like Mowwisey, he must be
portrayed as "left" to compensate for his bias. Just in case the
complaints from the right might start to have some effect. Its
counter weighting.
Here's some points to ponder.
If Holmes isn't a leftist, why would he fail to challenge, and
himself further propagate the view that Mooron's film was
"blocked"..??? (That's just one thing Suze)
himself further propagate the view that Mooron's film was
"blocked"..??? (That's just one thing Suze)
If Holmes isn't a leftist, why is it that he never ever has the
kind of guests or input to his show that measures up to Leighton
Smith's guests or sources of information?? Holmes views and news
and most input to his show comes from the usual mainstream
leftist sources, (BBC, ABC etc etc) when with a flick of his
fingers, if he wanted he could have balance, like Smith.
kind of guests or input to his show that measures up to Leighton
Smith's guests or sources of information?? Holmes views and news
and most input to his show comes from the usual mainstream
leftist sources, (BBC, ABC etc etc) when with a flick of his
fingers, if he wanted he could have balance, like Smith.
What I will concede is that Holmes knowledge base and sources of
information are fairly limited, and that he probably doesn't
even know what a brainwashed leftist bimbo he really is.
Secretary of the Labour party was best man at his wedding.
information are fairly limited, and that he probably doesn't
even know what a brainwashed leftist bimbo he really is.
Secretary of the Labour party was best man at his wedding.
The only thing that stops Holmes from being a more virulent
advocate of leftism is (IMHO) his knack for self preservation.
Like having Coddington on for a few minutes. Just a sop to the
many complaints that arise about his outrageously leftist
leanings.
advocate of leftism is (IMHO) his knack for self preservation.
Like having Coddington on for a few minutes. Just a sop to the
many complaints that arise about his outrageously leftist
leanings.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
|
Redbaiter says...
>
> Here's some points to ponder.
>
> If Holmes isn't a leftist, why would he fail to challenge, and
> himself further propagate the view that Mooron's film was
> "blocked"..??? (That's just one thing Suze)
>
> If Holmes isn't a leftist, why is it that he never ever has the
> kind of guests or input to his show that measures up to Leighton
> Smith's guests or sources of information?? Holmes views and news
> and most input to his show comes from the usual mainstream
> leftist sources, (BBC, ABC etc etc) when with a flick of his
> fingers, if he wanted he could have balance, like Smith.
>
> What I will concede is that Holmes knowledge base and sources of
> information are fairly limited, and that he probably doesn't
> even know what a brainwashed leftist bimbo he really is.
> Secretary of the Labour party was best man at his wedding.
>
> The only thing that stops Holmes from being a more virulent
> advocate of leftism is (IMHO) his knack for self preservation.
> Like having Coddington on for a few minutes. Just a sop to the
> many complaints that arise about his outrageously leftist
> leanings.
>
>
>
- show quoted text -
Jeezuz.. fucked that up... correction..
"must be portrayed as "right"...!!!!"
>
> Here's some points to ponder.
>
> If Holmes isn't a leftist, why would he fail to challenge, and
> himself further propagate the view that Mooron's film was
> "blocked"..??? (That's just one thing Suze)
>
> If Holmes isn't a leftist, why is it that he never ever has the
> kind of guests or input to his show that measures up to Leighton
> Smith's guests or sources of information?? Holmes views and news
> and most input to his show comes from the usual mainstream
> leftist sources, (BBC, ABC etc etc) when with a flick of his
> fingers, if he wanted he could have balance, like Smith.
>
> What I will concede is that Holmes knowledge base and sources of
> information are fairly limited, and that he probably doesn't
> even know what a brainwashed leftist bimbo he really is.
> Secretary of the Labour party was best man at his wedding.
>
> The only thing that stops Holmes from being a more virulent
> advocate of leftism is (IMHO) his knack for self preservation.
> Like having Coddington on for a few minutes. Just a sop to the
> many complaints that arise about his outrageously leftist
> leanings.
>
>
>
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt
|
"Redbaiter" <nodamn@mail.thanks> wrote in message
news:40b399b4@news.orcon.net.
>
> The other morning I heard one of them repeat the stupid lie that
> Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film.
>
Its you who are lying.
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:32:20 -1000, Mrs Norris <c@.com> wrote:
>Try TV3 7.00pm
>Far more educational.
>Try TV3 7.00pm
>Far more educational.
Not to mention, entertaining.
--
Tarla
****
"They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give
up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably,
their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that
we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely
necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
**Michael Moore
--
Tarla
****
"They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give
up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably,
their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that
we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely
necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
**Michael Moore
|
> It's not a "battle". I'd say that your decision to not watch Holmes
> is more the attitude of a "loser". I use his words to condemn him
> forever (just do a Google search on "paul holmes") while your only
> option seems to be a weary resignation.
> is more the attitude of a "loser". I use his words to condemn him
> forever (just do a Google search on "paul holmes") while your only
> option seems to be a weary resignation.
I work/study from 9am till 8.30pm -- have not been home from work to
watch even one show for well over 3 years, weary resignation, what are
you on fool any one who does not watch Holmes to comment on his latest
out pouring is weak or weary?? Watching Holmes is a habit that I lost
before I finished my teens (like watching TV for the sake of watching
TV) he was just boring and I have other things to do that are more
important.
watch even one show for well over 3 years, weary resignation, what are
you on fool any one who does not watch Holmes to comment on his latest
out pouring is weak or weary?? Watching Holmes is a habit that I lost
before I finished my teens (like watching TV for the sake of watching
TV) he was just boring and I have other things to do that are more
important.
They are his "words" only by proxy some one else makes them and that
person is the reference point for them not Paul.
person is the reference point for them not Paul.
BTW your own words make it a battle (at least for your part) and you
appear to need it to give your definition of what you perceive your self
to be. I personally do not want to define myself by some else's actions
as it turns you into a leech.
appear to need it to give your definition of what you perceive your self
to be. I personally do not want to define myself by some else's actions
as it turns you into a leech.
Murray S
|
Tarla wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:32:20 -1000, Mrs Norris <c@.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Try TV3 7.00pm
>>Far more educational.
>
>
> Not to mention, entertaining.
> --
>
>
>
>>Try TV3 7.00pm
>>Far more educational.
>
>
> Not to mention, entertaining.
> --
I miss it.
<sigh>
<sigh>
|
cancel <40b3...@clear.net.nz>
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.
|
> It's not a "battle". I'd say that your decision to not watch Holmes
> is more the attitude of a "loser". I use his words to condemn him
> forever (just do a Google search on "paul holmes") while your only
> option seems to be a weary resignation.
> is more the attitude of a "loser". I use his words to condemn him
> forever (just do a Google search on "paul holmes") while your only
> option seems to be a weary resignation.
I work/study from 9am till 8.30pm -- have not been home from work to
watch even one show for well over 3 years, weary resignation, what are
you on fool any one who does not watch Holmes to comment on his latest
out pouring is weak or weary?? Watching Holmes is a habit that I lost
before I finished my teens (like watching TV for the sake of watching
TV) he was just boring and I have other things to do that are more
important.
They are his "words" only by proxy some one else makes them and that
person is the reference point for them not Paul.
person is the reference point for them not Paul.
BTW your own words make it a battle (at least for your part) and you
appear to need it to give yourself definition to what you perceive your
self to be. I personally do not want to define myself by some else's
actions as it turns you into a leech.
actions as it turns you into a leech.
Murray S
|
In article <fb3a0456.04052...@
>On his joke of a television programme this evening, Paul Holmes
Bruce
------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
>On his joke of a television programme this evening, Paul Holmes
Oh ...and the reason anyone might watch this idiot would be ... ?
Bruce
------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution === followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there weere any)
(if there weere any)
|
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote in message news:<fb3a0456.0405250949.
> Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
> > Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
> > realising it)
>
> Don't you worry, I realised it!
>
> >
> > Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
> > and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
> > putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
> > opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
>
> Precisely.
>
> >
> > BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
> > contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
> > not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks).
>
> Holmes' "ratings", massaged or not, are irrelevant. It's obvious that
> he is immune to criticism and that he can virtually get away with
> anything
> Murray Sutherland <murray{removethis}-
> > Think you provided your own answer to this one (perhaps without
> > realising it)
>
> Don't you worry, I realised it!
>
> >
> > Holmes is very much a right winger, he has a long career in broadcasting
> > and as you yourself said a supporter of the campaign in Iraq. Sooo
> > putting 2 and 2 together you might think that he was using this as an
> > opportunity to "air his own views" through a proxy?
>
> Precisely.
>
> >
> > BTW another great irony is that in watching the show you actually
> > contributed to his ratings (and continued employment, Bill Ralston would
> > not keep him on if he didn't bring in the bucks).
>
> Holmes' "ratings", massaged or not, are irrelevant. It's obvious that
> he is immune to criticism and that he can virtually get away with
> anything
agreed. He hasn't got the nouse to really be left or right. I doubt
politics really matters one iota to such a narcissist.
His intellect makes Mike Moore of 'Frontline' fame look like PhD.
'Holmes' is about Holmes' own EGO, nothing else.
'highest paid broadcaster in NZ' or not, he doesn't even so much as a
bachelor in journalism, that's how qualified he is to 'present' a
so-called 'current affairs' show. Why they don't wheel out Susan Woods
to do all the real intwerviews on serious issues is beyond me. (maybe
Holmes would throw a tantie?)
Susan shows some signs of having a brain at least, and usually manages
to handle an interview, ask actual questions and extract - or try ot
extract - real answers. As for how she'd vote, I would have no way of
knowing, so she must be reasonably unbiased as an interviewer. Maybe
that's her 'problem ' as far as Ralston and producers are concerned?
People might switch off if they had to use their brain cells for more
than 2 minutes at a time, we couldnt have that on the national
broadcaster, now could we?
To get back to the topic of the US position and their defence of it, I
am really angry at the fact they keep talking about fighting 'the
enemy'
Is the 'enemy' now the Iraqui people?
because before the invasion, it was Hussein, and he's toast now.
The Iraquis were then the poor downtrodden citizens who had to be
rescued from fate worse than...?
The yanks are just re-writing the script as they bumble from disaster
to disaster. It was the fear/suspicion of many (including myself)
before this began that they had no idea of a strategy beyond a short
term one, that they had no idea the can of worms they were opening,
and that they and their allies would get bogged down in something
endless and tragic.
Unfortunately there is no consolation to any such 'non-believers' in
now being able to say 'I told you so'
politics really matters one iota to such a narcissist.
His intellect makes Mike Moore of 'Frontline' fame look like PhD.
'Holmes' is about Holmes' own EGO, nothing else.
'highest paid broadcaster in NZ' or not, he doesn't even so much as a
bachelor in journalism, that's how qualified he is to 'present' a
so-called 'current affairs' show. Why they don't wheel out Susan Woods
to do all the real intwerviews on serious issues is beyond me. (maybe
Holmes would throw a tantie?)
Susan shows some signs of having a brain at least, and usually manages
to handle an interview, ask actual questions and extract - or try ot
extract - real answers. As for how she'd vote, I would have no way of
knowing, so she must be reasonably unbiased as an interviewer. Maybe
that's her 'problem ' as far as Ralston and producers are concerned?
People might switch off if they had to use their brain cells for more
than 2 minutes at a time, we couldnt have that on the national
broadcaster, now could we?
To get back to the topic of the US position and their defence of it, I
am really angry at the fact they keep talking about fighting 'the
enemy'
Is the 'enemy' now the Iraqui people?
because before the invasion, it was Hussein, and he's toast now.
The Iraquis were then the poor downtrodden citizens who had to be
rescued from fate worse than...?
The yanks are just re-writing the script as they bumble from disaster
to disaster. It was the fear/suspicion of many (including myself)
before this began that they had no idea of a strategy beyond a short
term one, that they had no idea the can of worms they were opening,
and that they and their allies would get bogged down in something
endless and tragic.
Unfortunately there is no consolation to any such 'non-believers' in
now being able to say 'I told you so'
|
On 25 May 2004 10:49:40 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
- show quoted text -
Do you think we could swap Paul Holmes for Norman Gunstan (if he
hasn't retired) as he has a better interview technique, is better
looking and appeared to know more international stars and celebrities.
hasn't retired) as he has a better interview technique, is better
looking and appeared to know more international stars and celebrities.
Even Fred Dagg would be a huge improvement.
Why can't he (Holmes) sit still when he's waffling, he always seems to
be jiggling, leaning, leering or flapping his paws. I expect to to
break in "rap" at any moment and start pointing at the camera with
alternate hands.
be jiggling, leaning, leering or flapping his paws. I expect to to
break in "rap" at any moment and start pointing at the camera with
alternate hands.
Malcolm
Remove the dot's to reply
Remove the dot's to reply
|
Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message news:<aa87b0t7hm20mhvcfq4vne5u
>
> Morrissey Breen, a person who wouldn't know objectivity if it leaped
> up and bit him in the bum, detects bias in an interview - what a
> laugh.
> Morrissey Breen, a person who wouldn't know objectivity if it leaped
> up and bit him in the bum, detects bias in an interview - what a
> laugh.
"Objectivity"? Oh yes, that's right - according to you, that means
never questioning a politician, and letting smooth liars like William
Shawcross tell their lies without being interrupted by a rude
interviewer.
never questioning a politician, and letting smooth liars like William
Shawcross tell their lies without being interrupted by a rude
interviewer.
Your nderstanding of "objectivity" is about as nuanced as your
intrerpretation of myself being somehow the polar opposite of
Redbaiter. I think you need to think a little more carefully before
committing yourself to print.
intrerpretation of myself being somehow the polar opposite of
Redbaiter. I think you need to think a little more carefully before
committing yourself to print.
|
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
advertisers' needs.
What more is necessary?
|
K T T wrote:
> "Redbaiter" <nodamn@mail.thanks> wrote in message
> news:40b399b4@news.orcon.net.
>>
>> The other morning I heard one of them repeat the stupid lie that
>> Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film.
>>
> What lie?
> "Redbaiter" <nodamn@mail.thanks> wrote in message
> news:40b399b4@news.orcon.net.
>>
>> The other morning I heard one of them repeat the stupid lie that
>> Disney had "tried to block" Mooron's film.
>>
> What lie?
Disney did refuse to distribute the movie or promote it because Moore is
'too political'.
.
>
> Its you who are lying.
It is you who is confused or lying.....you tell us which it is......
Tilly
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/04
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
> news:<aa87b0t7hm20mhvcfq4vne5u
>
>>
>> Morrissey Breen, a person who wouldn't know objectivity if it leaped
>> up and bit him in the bum, detects bias in an interview - what a
>> laugh.
>
> "Objectivity"?
> Sue Bilstein <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
> news:<aa87b0t7hm20mhvcfq4vne5u
>
>>
>> Morrissey Breen, a person who wouldn't know objectivity if it leaped
>> up and bit him in the bum, detects bias in an interview - what a
>> laugh.
>
> "Objectivity"?
Mowissey be objective and admit you aren't objective. You have your own
biases and they are obvious.
biases and they are obvious.
Oh yes, that's right - according to you, that means
> never questioning a politician, and letting smooth liars like William
> Shawcross tell their lies without being interrupted by a rude
> interviewer.
>
> Your nderstanding of "objectivity" is about as nuanced as your
> intrerpretation of myself
> never questioning a politician, and letting smooth liars like William
> Shawcross tell their lies without being interrupted by a rude
> interviewer.
>
> Your nderstanding of "objectivity" is about as nuanced as your
> intrerpretation of myself
Errr isn't people's interpretation based on what you say Mowissey , the same
as with Redbaiter?
as with Redbaiter?
being somehow the polar opposite of
> Redbaiter. I think you need to think a little more carefully before
> committing yourself to print.
You certainly give that impression and what's more you think Peter Terry
(the goose stepping neo-Nazi who claims to know everything) is a good guy.
Tilly
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/04
|
"Tilly" <Brig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2a%sc.10393$XI4.3...@
>
> Mowissey be objective and admit you aren't objective. You have your own
> biases and they are obvious.
> Mowissey be objective and admit you aren't objective. You have your own
> biases and they are obvious.
Of course I do. But if I am talking to someone of entrenched views,
even if I agree with most of what he/she says, I will play devil's
advocate to test the robustness of those views. Holmes does not do
that.
even if I agree with most of what he/she says, I will play devil's
advocate to test the robustness of those views. Holmes does not do
that.
Kim Hill tries to do it, and succeeds in goading outrageous liars like
Jeffrey Archer and William Shawcross into outbursts of anger, but she
gets hauled over the coals by people of integrity who know more than
she does, like John Pilger and the late Edward Said. Even more
messily, that creep Brian Edwards shot himself in the foot by trying
to attack the superior Linley Hood on television last year.
Jeffrey Archer and William Shawcross into outbursts of anger, but she
gets hauled over the coals by people of integrity who know more than
she does, like John Pilger and the late Edward Said. Even more
messily, that creep Brian Edwards shot himself in the foot by trying
to attack the superior Linley Hood on television last year.
>
> Errr isn't people's interpretation based on what you say Mowissey , the same
> as with Redbaiter?
> Errr isn't people's interpretation based on what you say Mowissey , the same
> as with Redbaiter?
I push no narrow political line at all. Redbaiter does, to the point
of absurdity.
of absurdity.
>
> You certainly give that impression and what's more you think Peter Terry
> (the goose stepping neo-Nazi who claims to know everything) is a good guy.
> You certainly give that impression and what's more you think Peter Terry
> (the goose stepping neo-Nazi who claims to know everything) is a good guy.
When have I ever said anything like that? That's a remarkable thing
to say. If he is a neo-Nazi, I'll denounce him.
to say. If he is a neo-Nazi, I'll denounce him.
I trust, by the way, that you're not following the Susan Cohen line of
"criticising Israel means you're an antisemite".
"criticising Israel means you're an antisemite".
|
In article <40b3a790$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>
- show quoted text -
To any hard left socialist, anyone ever so slightly to the right of them
is right-wing. Hence why some claim that Labour is a centre right
government
is right-wing. Hence why some claim that Labour is a centre right
government
|
In article <c90e4j$og5$1...@news.wave.co.nz>
- show quoted text -
Rubbish, Moore has known for a long time that Disney doesn't want to
distribute his film, and they have not stopped anyone else from
distributing it.
distribute his film, and they have not stopped anyone else from
distributing it.
|
Patrick Dunford wrote:
> Rubbish, Moore has known for a long time that Disney doesn't want to
> distribute his film,
> Rubbish, Moore has known for a long time that Disney doesn't want to
> distribute his film,
He has? Since when has he known?
and they have not stopped anyone else from
> distributing it.
They don't want to promote or distribute it because it is "too
political".(out of the mouth of a senior Disney excutive.
political".(out of the mouth of a senior Disney excutive.
Tilly
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/04
|
In article <5Gztc.11132$XI4.3...@news.
@hotmail.com says...
> Patrick Dunford wrote:
> > Rubbish, Moore has known for a long time that Disney doesn't want to
> > distribute his film,
>
> He has? Since when has he known?
@hotmail.com says...
> Patrick Dunford wrote:
> > Rubbish, Moore has known for a long time that Disney doesn't want to
> > distribute his film,
>
> He has? Since when has he known?
Last year some time
> and they have not stopped anyone else from
> > distributing it.
>
> They don't want to promote or distribute it because it is "too
> political".(out of the mouth of a senior Disney excutive.
> > distributing it.
>
> They don't want to promote or distribute it because it is "too
> political".(out of the mouth of a senior Disney excutive.
It is very blatantly political.
It is not particularly unusual for people or organisations to refuse to
be involved in political activities.
be involved in political activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment