Just think how
funny that would be if they looked alike.
Sorry.
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:07,
archived)
Sorry.
they could
be non-identical twins
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
What if they really were magnets?
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:08,
archived)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
What if they really were magnets?
not lied
erred.
and there's no way Kelly woulda topped himself had his political masters not leaked his name and then compunded it by making him appear for a public flagellation
[edit] oh, and what nick higham said is correct - the sun has an uncontestable bias in all this, and it's doing so purely to undermine the BBC and thus the rationale for a license fee and to pave the way for Murdoch to get into terrestrial and not have to deal with high quality (for which read expensive to match/better) opposition.
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:14,
archived)
and there's no way Kelly woulda topped himself had his political masters not leaked his name and then compunded it by making him appear for a public flagellation
[edit] oh, and what nick higham said is correct - the sun has an uncontestable bias in all this, and it's doing so purely to undermine the BBC and thus the rationale for a license fee and to pave the way for Murdoch to get into terrestrial and not have to deal with high quality (for which read expensive to match/better) opposition.
Lied.
And it was the BBC that put Kelly in a position to be exposed, not the government.
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:16,
archived)
so it was the bbc who
leaked his name?
i think not. it was the government who allowed gilligan's source's name into the public domain. the one way you can't accuse gilligan of lacking journalistic integrity is in the protection of his source.
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:19,
archived)
i think not. it was the government who allowed gilligan's source's name into the public domain. the one way you can't accuse gilligan of lacking journalistic integrity is in the protection of his source.
Crikey
Are you Rebekah Wade in disguise?
Cos that's a bunch of shite, it really is.
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:19,
archived)
Cos that's a bunch of shite, it really is.
i've just read your blog
and was wondering which ABC news it was that you think is Marxist.
is it Aussie or American?
Just out of interest, mind
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:26,
archived)
is it Aussie or American?
Just out of interest, mind
I get the feeling
that you're not going to be swayed on this.
You have an axe, and it sounds like you use it to grind away at the chip on your shoulder.
No-one came out of the Hutton Report looking good. Kelly - he was in the wrong, as was the gov, the MOD and the BBC.
But, the BBC still come across as the most trust-worthy party involved.
( ,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:27,
archived)
You have an axe, and it sounds like you use it to grind away at the chip on your shoulder.
No-one came out of the Hutton Report looking good. Kelly - he was in the wrong, as was the gov, the MOD and the BBC.
But, the BBC still come across as the most trust-worthy party involved.