Sunday, 13 September 2009

Turd-Sniffing With The Human Toilet Roll


Biased BBC is rightly suspicious of most things with an -ology in them. That goes for psychology too.

Which is a good thing, because otherwise B-BBCers might find a moment or two of doubt within the notion of cognitive dissonance, an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

Anyway, there is bound to be a common-sense explanation for the following from Bias-finder General David Vance:

This is what I like best about the (Biased BBC) site, good debate and no personal abuse.

And this, culled from the last week on Biased BBC....

blood sucking parasite ugly female beeboid ugly female beeboid ugly female beeboid able to lie and cheat without fear of censure BBC lickspittles raving, frothing loony cultist reminds me of Stalin's followers out in Islington waiting for their new drug dealer crap drug addled thick beeboids that mince their way here twat talking crap feeling the arses of rent boys ex beeboid druggie BBC should be exterminated a rancid vile left wing organization turds first in line to lick the turds of McCoward scum gang of goons turd sniffers Shitman ugly beeboid, i feel sorry for the bloke who has to wake up to her ugly mug ugly, hate-filled little lives pointless faggotry pass the drugs and rent boys spoonfed bull***t biggest load of left wing crap the BBC mincer the Bimbo's breakfast slot scum a propaganda sheet for the Witchfinder General peddling frantically the lies of the lunatics a Fascist organisation blood on its hands antisemitic bully-boy pushing government propaganda beeboid human toilet roll

Unless....

Unless it's because all the above are directed at the BBC and its employees, often by name. In which case, good debate and no personal abuse cease to apply. Goes without saying...

22 comments:

  1. I used to pester them for a while, and after tirade after tirade of abusive personal speculation, ranging from what I like to put in my bottom (a lot), to my university degree (Media Studies), to just how quickly I would have hung Dreyfus (very quickly), one of them then said to me "Come out Alex, you're among friends".

    I don't think they actually consider it abuse. So long as it's about other people, I think they just see it as dispassionate statement of the facts. Which explains how come they have so much trouble with the word 'terrorist'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think if you removed the ones who clearly have mental health issues (e.g. Martin), the rabid Zionists (many overseas)and the barely educated who can't even articulate their own arguments in print, there'd be hardly anyone left there. The tiny minority who do have genuine points and can articulate them must cringe at their bedfellows - indeed, most seem to have jumped ship.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I used to post there my favourite piece of abuse directed at BBC staff was that most of the various newsrooms were actually full of Muslim reporters. Especially the white female reporters who were actually all married to Muslim men who told them what to do.
    Oh yes. And all BBC staff were Nazis and paedophiles. Lovely

    ReplyDelete
  4. The irony is many of these fruitcakes don't even understand the word "bias", which to them means "at odds with what I think". B-BBC is a hilarious read and getting better.

    Why does BBC radio apparently give airtime to Vance on NI issues if he is happy to run a site to which at least one regular posts abusive comments on Frank Gardner's disability without being banned?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 22:23. Why do they continue to give Mr Vance airtime? Because it fits The Narrative. On, hang on. It doesn't...

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's one of the ironies about Vance that he doesn't seem capable of getting to grips with.

    The BBC is a monolithic organisation that fearlessly crushes opposing views... and yet an untalented, uninformative extremist gobshite like him with barely disguised racist tendencies is still given airtime.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have come to this site from the Biased one, and whilst I certainly don't agree with all the sentiments expressed on that one, it does have some real sense of life and discussion.
    This site only seems to exist to cherry pick items from the other, rather than to argue for the continuing existence of the BBC on it's own merits.
    Seems a bit of a waste of both sites time really, but if it keeps you all happy...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 23.32: Indeed. We're taking the mickey. The BBC makes a daily case for its own existence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I also have to agree with Anon 23.32. If it wasn't for B-BBC making personal insults about BBC staff and calling them turd-sniffers which in turn is, obviously, an argument against the continued existence of the BBC, then imagine what mess we would be in! OMTE can you not inject some sense of life and discussion into this site? Or am I wasting my time?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon 23.32: Indeed. We're taking the mickey. The BBC makes a daily case for its own existence.

    Obviously not--even the BBC itself is undergoing a review of it's vast empire and it's costs.
    It is perfectly legitimate to dislike the BBC and it's tatics, and to have a website voicing your opinions.
    My point is that this site does nothing other than reflect the BBBC's postings without casting any light on the counter arguments.
    Many of the BBBC points made are very relevant and well structured (and some are clearly mad!) but you can't afford to disregard them all.
    Your choice--

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 09.28: It would be a moribund outfit which did not take stock of its activities. Biased BBC proclaims its mission to be exposing bias, rather than funding or corporate reach. I'm measuring the gap between B-BBC's ambition and its achievements. In laughs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The BBC has been increasing it's size for many years and has been forced by financial, public and political pressure to reconsider it's size. It does not function like any other business in a market as it uses it's huge financial advantage to bully it's commercial "competition" without necessarily producing different or unique programmes.
    It seems to have a confused stategy; is it a commercially competitive station or a public one?
    ref BBBC; it seems unfortunately for you their site seems far better attended than yours, so perhaps you have failed in your mission to inform the masses of their bias.
    As for the number of laughs I remain to be convinced

    ReplyDelete
  13. "ref BBBC; it seems unfortunately for you their site seems far better attended than yours"

    More people eat at McDonalds every day than The Fat Duck. It doesn't mean it's better fare. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 13.09: I labour under the burden of envy for Mr Vance's flagship, only occasionally comforted by the thought that they've been at it for several years now, whilst this inadequate offering slithered into existence a mere month or two ago. No excuse, even so.

    ReplyDelete
  15. More people eat at McDonalds every day than The Fat Duck. It doesn't mean it's better fare. Go figure

    An unfortunate choice of restaurant considering it was closed for giving it's diners food poisoning.
    I would be interested in your addressing the main point of my posting ref the BBC.
    It appears offer nothing of substance, other than some strange attraction to your nemesis website.
    It would be much better if you offered original ideas and material that might convince non believers that the BBC is worth keeping.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 18.14 et al:

    It would be much better if you offered original ideas and material that might convince non believers that the BBC is worth keeping.

    Not my mission at all. There are many places for erudite, passionate discussion about funding formulae and the Beeb's role as creator/destroyer of web-based news, plus the precise size of Jonathan Ross's package. This isn't one of them. (And neither is Biased BBC).

    ReplyDelete
  17. fair comment --will carry on looking then..

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can't take Anon seriously. BBBC does nothing to convince 'non-believers' that the BBC isn't worth keeping. Aside from holding far right views in pretty much everything the submissions hardly touch on BBC output other than to say that it's left wing. Hardly the, 'real sense of life and discussion' you claim. 'I would gladly slit the throat of any BBC employee'. Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Reasoned, well thought out arguments against the continuation of the BBC. Why didn't I see this sooner! Nasty, spiteful and evil. Where do I sign?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joyston: A bit unfair to say Biased BBC hardly touches on BBC output other than to say that it's left wing. It also says a lot of BBC output is antisemitic. And dhimmi. And otterly EVIL.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ooh, ooh, don't forget that climate change is left wing, statist and the thin end of the wedge of communism. It's probably caused by muslims burning copies of the torah for all we know.

    Ask Rupert Murdoch, that well known watermelon. This is what he said:

    "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats.. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."

    ReplyDelete
  21. The sad fact for all you lovely folks on these scintillating sites is that in short order the BBC will be forced to reduce in size and probably go to subscription only with the digital age.
    This will get rid of both these sites and all of you will be forced to do something more interesting instead.
    The BBC has serious failings (and some strengths) but it should be consumer choice to pay to see it or choose not to.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for that. If I'm not awake when it all happens, give me a nudge.

    ReplyDelete