23
   

Is this the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch's media empire?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
There's nothing wrong with my comprehension skills, the problem lies in your ability to express yourself.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:40 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension skills, the problem lies in your ability to express yourself.
We are at an impasse then...hopefully we can do better at communicating in the future.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 12:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
This is what you wrote,
Until we start talking about what I hope and expect people will do with their freedom once we win it back from government oppression.
Until what? It is not a sentence.

You should have written
Until we start talking about what I hope, and expect, people will do with their freedom, once we win it back from government oppression, then (fill in the missing phrase Hawks).

Once you fill in the gap, it will be a sentence and make sense.

A few suggestions,
1) I will be happy.
2) We can worry about sexual equality.
3) I might say something relevant to the conversation.

Or you could choose your own phrase, after all it's your sentence, sorry, part sentence.





hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:02 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I sound like a Tory (u)ntil we start talking about what I hope and expect people will do with their freedom once we win it back from government oppression, then I no longer do
Better?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I sound like a Tory (u)ntil we start talking about what I hope and expect people will do with their freedom once we win it back from government oppression, then I no longer do
Better?


Better still,
I sound like a Tory, (u)ntil we start talking about what I hope, and expect, people will do with their freedom. Once we win it back from government oppression, then I no longer (will.)

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:27 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Better still,
I sound like a Tory, (u)ntil we start talking about what I hope, and expect, people will do with their freedom. Once we win it back from government oppression, then I no longer (will.)
I graduated HS 1980, just as the grammar rule task masters were getting routed by the freestylers, plus I am a radical and a libertarian.....I am thus not impressed with your peevish demand that speakers conform to your rigid old school grammar preference.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Better still,
I sound like a Tory, (u)ntil we start talking about what I hope, and expect, people will do with their freedom. Once we win it back from government oppression, then I no longer (will.)
I graduated HS 1980, just as the grammar rule task masters were getting routed by the freestylers, plus I am a radical and a libertarian.....I am thus not impressed with your peevish demand that speakers conform to your rigid grammar preference.


That would work if your radical sentence construction gave you the pioneering flair of another William Burroughs. It doesn't, it makes you appear a bit thick. You're not breaking the rules, you don't understand the rules. There is a difference.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:39 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You're not breaking the rules, you don't understand the rules. There is a difference
I was an engineering major at university, so I did not do a lot of writing, and I came of age during a time when the school teaching was "there are rules, here are some of them, follow them if you want but dont be a slave to them". In fact the people I come across who insist upon precise grammar according to the rules tend to be people who are best ignored or despised, as they tend to be small minded elitists, some of the most unsavoury of the human race.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 01:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
The only real rule is that you should make sense. I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do feel that words should make sense. People don't tend to be taken seriously if they don't make sense.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 02:14 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

The only real rule is that you should make sense. I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do feel that words should make sense. People don't tend to be taken seriously if they don't make sense.
My experience has been that people dont like what I have to say on the basis of not liking the message, I rarely hear that the message is incomprehensible. I am thus much more inclined to believe that you are being a prick than I am that you did not get it.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 02:28 pm
Quote:
The country's top police officer resigned Sunday and Rupert Murdoch's former aide Rebekah Brooks was arrested as the phone hacking scandal finally tore into the heart of the establishment.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson said he was quitting due to speculation about his links to Murdoch's empire and the force's botched investigation into hacking at the now-defunct News of the World tabloid.
His shock announcement came just hours after police arrested Brooks -- who resigned on Friday as head of News International, Murdoch's newspaper arm -- on suspicion of phone-hacking and bribing police.
"I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met's links with News International at a senior level," Stephenson said in a hastily arranged televised statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-chief-quits-over-phone-hacking-scandal-184708233.html

The decision to take on Murdoch is going to cost the British State big time in credibility, which nailing Murdoch with law now will not fix. It is yet another example amongst many of how corrupted by the corporate class Western States have become, it will be yet another nail in the coffin of the current world order, which is rapidly crumbling now. Once the depression hits it will be all over.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 05:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

The only real rule is that you should make sense. I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do feel that words should make sense. People don't tend to be taken seriously if they don't make sense.
My experience has been that people dont like what I have to say on the basis of not liking the message, I rarely hear that the message is incomprehensible. I am thus much more inclined to believe that you are being a prick than I am that you did not get it.


I'm sure the 'man' has never 'got' you. You're way too radical for that old fogey. You've got a unique system of logic, it's probably best that your message is garbled, because that stops people seeing your thinking.

It's not a case of liking or not liking your message, it's whether or not it has any credibility. You obviously want some form of social upheaval, but just wanting something won't make it happen. There's far less industrial unrest now than in the 1970s. There's no pan-national socialist uprising going on.

I fail to see how tackling Murdoch diminishes Britain's credibility. I would think not tackling it would be far more detrimental. Then again, I've never really watched Glenn Beck for more than a couple of minutes, so I've probably got a problem keeping up with your revolutionary thought processes.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 05:52 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You obviously want some form of social upheaval,
Want is not really the right word, I expect and I think it is required, and I think it is inevitable as our current civilization is circling the toilet bowl with no hope of salvage.

Quote:
I fail to see how tackling Murdoch diminishes Britain's credibility
A long running pattern of collusion between Murdoch and the state leaders as well as police has already come to light, and you dont see how the states reputation does not suffer here?? Really?

Quote:
But this scandal is about more than press behaviour. On trial in at least one of the inquiries that Cameron called on Friday will be decades of collusion between politicians and newspaper proprietors, most especially Murdoch -- collusion that could also implicate the British police.

Ivor Gaber, professor of political journalism at City University, said it would be naïve to think the scandal's fallout will herald a definitive end to all that. The relationship between politicians and the media is too symbiotic.

"I think as big a story that will emerge is corruption," he said

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/11/uk-newscorp-britain-idUKLNE76A02X20110711
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I fail to see how tackling Murdoch diminishes Britain's credibility
A long running pattern of collusion between Murdoch and the state leaders as well as police has already come to light, and you dont see how the states reputation does not suffer here?? Really?


Try to look at my sentence. I used the word 'tackling.' Murdoch and mass media's relationship to the state is not a phenomenon confined to Britain. We're doing something about it.
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:03 pm
Excuse this interruption.

Another resignation in the UK.
This time the Metropiltan police commissioner.

Quote:
Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson: resignation statement

The full statement given by Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson upon his resignation on Sunday night


"I have this afternoon informed the palace, the home secretary and the mayor of my intention to resign as commissioner of the Metropolitan police service.

"I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met's links with News International at a senior level and in particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis who as you know was arrested in connection with Operation Weeting last week ....<cont>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/17/sir-paul-stephenson-resignation-statement


Carry on now. Wink
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:09 pm
@msolga,
Some people are saying that Stevenson has done what Cameron should do. They both employed a NOTW journo connected to the scandal, so they should both resign. It's not as simple as that though, Stevenson also took a £12000 freebie health spa holiday.

msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:22 pm
@izzythepush,
Yes, from what I've been reading, Cameron has quite a bit to answer for, though you folk in the UK would know a lot more of the details.
Stevenson took a bribe from Murdoch?
As well as the all the rest?

Sorry to interrupt your conversation with hawkeye.
I found it rather interesting, actually. Wink
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:24 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:



Try to look at my sentence. I used the word 'tackling.' Murdoch and mass media's relationship to the state is not a phenomenon confined to Britain. We're doing something about it.
so let me see if I have this....twenty years into a collusion you expect the British political leadership to get credit for turning on Murdoch? Not bloody likely.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 06:47 pm
@msolga,
From what I've read, Murdoch even hired criminals to do his dirty work. Nice guy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/former-british-pm-says-murdochs-papers-hired-known-criminals/2011/07/12/gIQA4owlAI_story.html
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2011 07:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, that's right, ci.
And what possible useful purpose would the revelation of Gordon Brown's son's illness, via front page tabloid headlines (just one example of these hired criminals' "findings" ), have served?
Just despicable.
What surprises me is that it took so long to bring Murdoch's UK "news" outlets to account for such excesses.
Bravo, the Guardian, for sticking to your guns!



 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:01:51