On 03/06/2023 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:26:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
>>> do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
>>> language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.
>>
>> Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
>> fact.
>
> Biologists don't seem to have any difficulty knowing what they mean by
> male and female. I understand that their ultimate reference is based
> on genetic code because it's easily specified and doesn't change.
>
> To have any meaningful discussion about anything, you need some common
> ground that nobody can dispute because it depends on facts that can be
> verified objectively and are not dependent on anybody's feelings.
>
>> With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
>> are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
>> language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
>> the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those
>> categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.
>
> You can invent categories till the cows come home, but nature has only
> invented two sexes. There is a survival advantage in combining
> reproductive information from two parents, just two, but no advantage
> in going further, so nature hasn't gone any further. As with any
> complex system, any part of it can go wrong, or function abnormally,
> or fail to follow the usual course (choose your euphemism according to
> fashion) but whatever you call it the 'spectrum' you speak of is only
> a spectrum of variations in how the system functions. A system based
> on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact. Anything else is fantasy.

Actually I understand that some fungi have thousands of sexes. Maybe Liz
is a mushroom.

--
Max Demian

In message <jVKrr5DribekFwv3@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:38:51,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>In article <kdpjvtFq5jmU1@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> scribeth thus
[]
>>Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
>>kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.
>>
>
>A good indicator of how many of us spent our misplaced yoof with heads
>in Bass bins at gigs back in the day;!...
>
I didn't - was never into heavy rock of any flavour, nor AFAICR anything
particularly loud. But when I used some of those self-test utilities a
few years ago, I was amazed to find my hearing cuts off about 8 kHz!
(I'm 63 now, though was probably 60 or less when I did the test.) Now,
this may not be entirely true, as it obviously relies on the frequency
performance of laptop speakers (though I did try headphones as well),
but I'd have thought that these would still work to well above 8 kHz.

If the cutoff really is correct, it must have happened very gradually,
as I'm not aware of the world sounding muffled, or having any difficulty
in for example conversation - and the _acuity_ of my hearing remains
high, i. e. I hear very quiet sounds (often that others don't).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <u5ch2g$35c7r$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:42:24,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[]
>>> All that said, without the core licence fee funded resources, the
>>> channel couldn't exist.  Also BBC World and BBC News Channel have almost
>>> merged into a single operation, but that's another story....
>>
>> How do they cope with the commercial breaks in the UK version?
[]
>It’s all the padding trailers and extended weather forecasts that mask the
>advert slots.
>
Yes, I was going to say weather, but you're right about the trailers
too.

I did see within the last few days a presenter being very apologetic to
someone he'd just set up with a detailed introduction, that we have to
stop now for a break - first time I'd seen that on BBC, so clearly the
breaks have considerable power, i. e. can't be delayed a minute or two.
(Obviously I just got weather.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <5aae1ac902bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023
08:41:16, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
>In article <kdsbnoF80oaU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2023 18:31, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
[]
>> > Radio Four is not representative of Britain; it's representative
>> > of a small group of woke leftists. None of my friends listen to
>> > Radio Four. Bill
>
>> Wokeness and leftness have very little to do with it.
>
>The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of public

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

>opinion. It's not interested in telling you the whole story so that
>you can form your own opinion, instead it filters the news and twist
>what remains in order to push public opinion into a narrow controlled
>narrative.

I see the BBC as somewhat conservative - with a small c - i. e., biased
somewhat towards the status quo; somewhat inevitable for any
organisation as old as it is. I think it's aware of that aspect of
itself, and tries - sometimes too hard - to go the other way, e. g.
regarding minority rights (religious, racial, sexual, and many others).
>
>Those who share their world view or those that don't look outside
>main stream media, will of course not see what is happening.
>
>The BBC is pro just about every one of the modern cultist religions
>however absurd they are and doesn't allow any of them to be
>questioned.

I don't think I'd go that far. It gives plenty of time to those
"religions" (I assume you mean the list below) - sometimes excessively
so, but that of course is a matter of opinion.
>
>Gender, Climate change, Woke, BLM, leftness, immigration,
>anti-britain, pro dissolution, pro EU etc. etc.

Made me smile (ruefully!) to read someone claiming the BBC is pro
immigration! Maybe being in the south-east I see more against than some,
but I certainly wouldn't have said that. As for the other items, yes
I've sometimes felt they go too far in those directions - but sometimes
they crush them too.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <6eade8d4-6244-4808-9682-6922b405a01en@googlegroups.com> at
Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:10:14, "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes
>On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 16:10:14 UTC+1, MB wrote:
>> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> > It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
>> > anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
>> > trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
>> > transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
>> > a mention.
>> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
>>
>> Usually more like Oxford this week, a handful of transvestites nearly
>> managed to stop a sebate attended by many more than that as well as
>> probably put some people off going to the debate.
>Don't you know the difference between trasvestites and transgender?
>Bill

That was my first thought, but then I thought he might he saying "I
doubt there are even 100k transvestites, let alone transgender". (Though
if the statistics someone then posted are correct, he'd be wrong.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

[...]
> A system based
> on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.

Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant school to
keep it simple. The biology of sex is far more complex than that and
more is being discovered all the time. Look up any text book for
'A'-level or above.

Now that chromosome testing is becoming easy and cheap, most of the
things we though we thought we knew are turning out to be untrue, but
the idea that humans are only male and female has been known to be wrong
for over a century.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On 03/06/2023 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:26:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> > (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
> >> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
> >>> do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
> >>> language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
> >> fact.
> >
> > Biologists don't seem to have any difficulty knowing what they mean by
> > male and female. I understand that their ultimate reference is based
> > on genetic code because it's easily specified and doesn't change.
> >
> > To have any meaningful discussion about anything, you need some common
> > ground that nobody can dispute because it depends on facts that can be
> > verified objectively and are not dependent on anybody's feelings.
> >
> >> With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
> >> are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
> >> language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
> >> the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those
> >> categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.
> >
> > You can invent categories till the cows come home, but nature has only
> > invented two sexes. There is a survival advantage in combining
> > reproductive information from two parents, just two, but no advantage
> > in going further, so nature hasn't gone any further. As with any
> > complex system, any part of it can go wrong, or function abnormally,
> > or fail to follow the usual course (choose your euphemism according to
> > fashion) but whatever you call it the 'spectrum' you speak of is only
> > a spectrum of variations in how the system functions. A system based
> > on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact. Anything else is fantasy.
>
> Actually I understand that some fungi have thousands of sexes. Maybe Liz
> is a mushroom.

Have you been looking at the photograph on my driving licence?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In message <5aae528561bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023
18:50:03, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
>In article <uo4k7iln49ek2jsqcnpuf48fqspqa9t9e1@4ax.com>,
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:11:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> >On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
>> >> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
>> >
>> >Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for
>> >their shareholders.

(I'm not sure about that: I don't know how much they are independent of
ITV and Sky. I thought their _primary_ reason for _existence_ is some
obligation [left over from the original ITV licencing?] to provide
_some_ news output, without that obligation having _that_ much to say
about balance/content/whatever.)
>
>> I think Sky News is in a different position in that AIUI there are
>> legally binding covenants about maintaining editorial independence
>> related to the takeover by Comcast.
>
>It could be because of Comcast and some say it is but Sky News
>Australia is vastly better than ours, much more balance and far less
>propaganda.

You mean its output aligns more with your views (-:
>
>I don't know who owns Sky News Australia.
>
>
>Bob.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <u5enfn$3gcl1$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023 07:44:08,
MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>On 02/06/2023 17:56, Scott wrote:
>> <hypothetical> Could Burghead continue (technically) if Droitwich
>> closes, on the basis that a lot of the Highlands are not served by
>> DAB?
>
>
>I suspect more of the Highlands are served by DAB than Long Wave.
>
>
Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
which you meant.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:21:56, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> A system based
>> on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.
>
>Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant school to
>keep it simple. The biology of sex is far more complex than that and
>more is being discovered all the time. Look up any text book for
>'A'-level or above.
>
>Now that chromosome testing is becoming easy and cheap, most of the
>things we though we thought we knew are turning out to be untrue, but
>the idea that humans are only male and female has been known to be wrong
>for over a century.
>
I fear you may be going too far there: yes, _brain_ does cover a broad
spectrum, and I personally have been strongly against most gender
sterotyping for as long as I've been aware of it. The _reproductive_
parts of the human, however, do come in just the two flavours (most of
the time: hermaphrodites - people with bits of both - _do_ exist, but
are _extremely_ rare), and so far there's no sign of that being
changeable. (Cosmetic - and working for sex purposes - changes can be
done, but they're not reproductively functional.)

Having said that, I think those who are violently anti-trans (who also
tend to be against women's rights, though not always) must be behind
there being little if any real research into either artificial (i. e.
external) wombs (gestation chambers) or male pregnancy.

This is way OT for UTB, though. Happy to go to email.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

In article <9u5Jz0BV+yekFw+9@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <5aae528561bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023
> 18:50:03, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes

> >> I think Sky News is in a different position in that AIUI there
> >> are legally binding covenants about maintaining editorial
> >> independence related to the takeover by Comcast.
> >
> >It could be because of Comcast and some say it is but Sky News
> >Australia is vastly better than ours, much more balance and far
> >less propaganda.

> You mean its output aligns more with your views (-:

To some extent yes. Their political bandwidth is wider than the
narrow controlled narrative we have from main stream media in the UK.
The widest here is GB News and Talk TV which do have some different
points of view on topics.

We have a problem in the UK. Until the last 10 or 15 years, different
views on all topics were fine, now you can be sacked for wrong think,
and ofcom jump on anything that doesn't follow the prescription.
This is the road to totalitarianism and fascism. A warning sign is
the creation of "fact checkers" or the ministry of truth. This is
controlling the narrative and controlling you.

Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This
is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
groups but nothing. Can't think why.

Bob.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
> Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:21:56, Liz Tuddenham
> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
> >Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> A system based
> >> on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.
> >
> >Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant school to
> >keep it simple. The biology of sex is far more complex than that and
> >more is being discovered all the time. Look up any text book for
> >'A'-level or above.
> >
> >Now that chromosome testing is becoming easy and cheap, most of the
> >things we though we thought we knew are turning out to be untrue, but
> >the idea that humans are only male and female has been known to be wrong
> >for over a century.
> >
> I fear you may be going too far there: yes, _brain_ does cover a broad
> spectrum, and I personally have been strongly against most gender
> sterotyping for as long as I've been aware of it.

I was referring to physical biology, not psychology.

>The _reproductive_
> parts of the human, however, do come in just the two flavours (most of
> the time: hermaphrodites - people with bits of both - _do_ exist, but
> are _extremely_ rare), and so far there's no sign of that being
> changeable.

That's what is coming to light with chromosome testing. There are far
more chimera than we thought and lots of people have mixed-up
chromosomes without any difference in the appearance of their genitals.
(...and others have uncertain genital appearance without any special
chromosome arrangements).

If you only consider breeding men and women, two sexes are necessary and
sufficient, but that excludes a huge proportion of the population who
don't breed for medical, social or age reasons. They are still forced
to declare they are male or female when some of them may, in fact, be
neither or both. The distinction is artificial and unnecessary much of
the time.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In article <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> [...]
> > A system based
> > on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.

> Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant
> school to keep it simple.

Roughly as a percentage, what proportion of the population do not
have XX or XY chromosomes? I accept that those people may be harder
to classify.

On Twitter yesterday the story was of a pregnant man. There was a
picture of the individual who had done everything possible to make
him/her self look male, except for the extended lower abdomen due to
pregnancy.

Now okay, some people claim that gender is not the same as sex. But
that becomes very hard to accept when someone claiming to be a man is
pregnant.

I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
pregnant you are a female. I think it would be considered mad to
think otherwise and an abandoment of common sense and reason. Not
that that is anything unusual these days in the insane, suicidal West.

Having said all of that, I have no wish to be offensive or to cause
pain and I have sympathy but I'm not about to roll over and abandon
reason.

Bob.

On 03/06/2023 13:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
> which you meant.)

Almost certain more served by DAB by area but by population will be VHF
FM because of Inverness which is well served.

On 03/06/2023 14:04, Bob Latham wrote:
> Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
> universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This
> is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
> jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
> groups but nothing. Can't think why.

I don't think the media came out of well, I saw many of the government
press conferences and the media came over as thick as the proverbial.
Very few had any medical or even scientific education (never mind actual
qualifications). Their main aim seemed to be to get a soundbite to use
on their news programme even if the question had already been asked many
times.

On 03/06/2023 14:24, Bob Latham wrote:
> I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
> pregnant you are a female.

I suspect that if they were allowed by medical ethics, an embryo could
be implanted in a pig, cow, monkey ... and born which is what they seem
to do with 'pregnant' men.

In message <5aaebc3583bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023
14:04:26, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
>In article <9u5Jz0BV+yekFw+9@255soft.uk>,
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <5aae528561bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023
>> 18:50:03, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
[]
>> >It could be because of Comcast and some say it is but Sky News
>> >Australia is vastly better than ours, much more balance and far
>> >less propaganda.
>
>> You mean its output aligns more with your views (-:
>
>To some extent yes. Their political bandwidth is wider than the
>narrow controlled narrative we have from main stream media in the UK.
>The widest here is GB News and Talk TV which do have some different
>points of view on topics.

I suspect there's little point in progressing this discussion (certainly
in UTB); if you think GB News has wide political bandwidth and the BBC
narrow, and I think the opposite, then neither of us will change the
mind of the other. I do occasionally look at GBN - if I allow for its
political views, it can be interesting, and certainly entertaining. The
times I end up at GBN are usually when the BBC and Sky are indulging in
monostoryism, as they have a depressing tendency to do these days
(preoccupation with one story to the exclusion of all other news).
>
>We have a problem in the UK. Until the last 10 or 15 years, different
>views on all topics were fine, now you can be sacked for wrong think,
>and ofcom jump on anything that doesn't follow the prescription.

Certainly "political correctness gone mad" is a common cry, and often
with justification; though what many of those crying it forget is that
the _original_ reason for the rules was a genuine discrimination. PCGM
is _usually_ caused by _unintelligent_ interpretation of rules - usually
by someone not very bright, sometimes by someone who can see the
daftness but who are under a superior (which can include an
organisation) who doesn't.

>This is the road to totalitarianism and fascism. A warning sign is
>the creation of "fact checkers" or the ministry of truth. This is
>controlling the narrative and controlling you.

As always, such have their place, but can get out of hand.
>
>Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
>universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This

Each individual case needs examining. (But most people don't have the
time - or, increasingly, the training in the scientific way of thinking
- necessary.)

>is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
>jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
>groups but nothing. Can't think why.

Because it's too complicated - and because most media folk aren't of a
scientific background.
>
>Bob.
>
12d. (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

In message <u5fg2i$3is84$2@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:43:47,
MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>On 03/06/2023 14:04, Bob Latham wrote:
>> Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
>> universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This
>> is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
>> jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
>> groups but nothing. Can't think why.
>
>
>I don't think the media came out of well, I saw many of the government
>press conferences and the media came over as thick as the proverbial.
>Very few had any medical or even scientific education (never mind
>actual qualifications). Their main aim seemed to be to get a soundbite
>to use on their news programme even if the question had already been
>asked many times.
>
>
I soon became extremely frustrated with the media when they repeatedly
got wrong that which one would once have at least expected them to get
right - the technical aspects: presenting graphs at too low a
resolution, or (especially BBC News) not turning off their banner so
that important parts were obscured. This carried on far longer (i. e.
it's the case still) than was at all acceptable. I guess as for what you
refer to above - questions and the like - I'd already dismissed as
likely to be from people who don't know their gluteus from their
humerus; it was the fact that what _were_ *reasonably* scientific
presentations (even if they had a political slant, which I'm sure they
sometimes did) were rendered unusable that I can't forgive.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

On 03/06/2023 14:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I suspect there's little point in progressing this discussion (certainly
> in UTB); if you think GB News has wide political bandwidth and the BBC
> narrow, and I think the opposite, then neither of us will change the
> mind of the other. I do occasionally look at GBN - if I allow for its
> political views, it can be interesting, and certainly entertaining. The
> times I end up at GBN are usually when the BBC and Sky are indulging in
> monostoryism, as they have a depressing tendency to do these days
> (preoccupation with one story to the exclusion of all other news).

On the few occasions I've actually looked at GB News, they seem to be
adopting the same attitudes as the "Shock Jocks" on some radio
programmes. Pick a controversial subject and argue with those who phone
in, no matter which side they support.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article <ke11oeFuc6lU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 03/06/2023 14:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> > I suspect there's little point in progressing this discussion
> > (certainly in UTB); if you think GB News has wide political
> > bandwidth and the BBC narrow, and I think the opposite, then
> > neither of us will change the mind of the other. I do
> > occasionally look at GBN - if I allow for its political views, it
> > can be interesting, and certainly entertaining. The times I end
> > up at GBN are usually when the BBC and Sky are indulging in
> > monostoryism, as they have a depressing tendency to do these days
> > (preoccupation with one story to the exclusion of all other news).

> On the few occasions I've actually looked at GB News, they seem to
> be adopting the same attitudes as the "Shock Jocks" on some radio
> programmes. Pick a controversial subject and argue with those who
> phone in, no matter which side they support.

I can honestly say I can't recall ever seeing a phone in on GBN and I
watch it quite a bit. That's not to say they don't do them though.

Talk radio do phone ins.

Bob.

In article <+KDJaqL$a0ekFwdg@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <5aaebc3583bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023
> 14:04:26, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
> >In article <9u5Jz0BV+yekFw+9@255soft.uk>,

> >This is the road to totalitarianism and fascism. A warning sign is
> >the creation of "fact checkers" or the ministry of truth. This is
> >controlling the narrative and controlling you.

> As always, such have their place, but can get out of hand.

Clearly I don't see it like that. Nasty regimes often have a ministry
of truth, it's basically claiming authority to strengthen one
argument against another. Narrative control.

> >Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
> >universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think.
> >This

> Each individual case needs examining. (But most people don't have
> the time - or, increasingly, the training in the scientific way of
> thinking - necessary.)

Are you talking about the silenced scientists or the media.

During the covid pandemic they shutdown Professor Sunetra Gupta,
She's an expert on the subject maybe even our top expert but she
didn't follow the narrative so she was pushed out.

But if you're a committed communist singing the narrative you get a
job in Sage advising on using fear as a weapon against the people of
the country.

> >is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would
> >be jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in
> >all age groups but nothing. Can't think why.

> Because it's too complicated - and because most media folk aren't
> of a scientific background.

No. It's because the government and the media know that what was done
to the public during covid is now the cause of these deaths, of that
there can be no doubt. It was predicted at the time by the silenced.
People are trying to hide the truth.

Bob.

On 03/06/2023 14:46, MB wrote:
> On 03/06/2023 14:24, Bob Latham wrote:

>> I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
>> pregnant you are a female.

> I suspect that if they were allowed by medical ethics, an embryo could
> be implanted in a pig, cow, monkey ... and born which is what they seem
> to do with 'pregnant' men.

You could do that, perhaps, in that an ectopic pregnancy sometimes
works. In practice, I think "pregnant men" are women who have changed
some external characteristics to appear to look like men. Not sure how
hormonal manipulation would affect the pregnancy (or resulting child).

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:56:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <jVKrr5DribekFwv3@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:38:51,
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>In article <kdpjvtFq5jmU1@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
>><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> scribeth thus
>[]
>>>Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
>>>kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.
>>>
>>
>>A good indicator of how many of us spent our misplaced yoof with heads
>>in Bass bins at gigs back in the day;!...
>>
>I didn't - was never into heavy rock of any flavour, nor AFAICR anything
>particularly loud. But when I used some of those self-test utilities a
>few years ago, I was amazed to find my hearing cuts off about 8 kHz!
>(I'm 63 now, though was probably 60 or less when I did the test.) Now,
>this may not be entirely true, as it obviously relies on the frequency
>performance of laptop speakers (though I did try headphones as well),
>but I'd have thought that these would still work to well above 8 kHz.

I tried an online app until I realised the limitation could be in the
equipment rather than in my hearing. What kind of utility did you
use?
>
>If the cutoff really is correct, it must have happened very gradually,
>as I'm not aware of the world sounding muffled, or having any difficulty
>in for example conversation - and the _acuity_ of my hearing remains
>high, i. e. I hear very quiet sounds (often that others don't).

I thought the upper limit for speech was 8 kHz anyway:
https://www.soundproofcow.com/difference-high-middle-low-frequency-noise/#:~:text=Human%20ears%20can%20register%20sounds,100%20and%208%2C000%20Hz%20range

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:00:33 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <u5ch2g$35c7r$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:42:24,
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver
>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>>>> All that said, without the core licence fee funded resources, the
>>>> channel couldn't exist.  Also BBC World and BBC News Channel have almost
>>>> merged into a single operation, but that's another story....
>>>
>>> How do they cope with the commercial breaks in the UK version?
>[]
>>It’s all the padding trailers and extended weather forecasts that mask the
>>advert slots.
>>
>Yes, I was going to say weather, but you're right about the trailers
>too.
>
>I did see within the last few days a presenter being very apologetic to
>someone he'd just set up with a detailed introduction, that we have to
>stop now for a break - first time I'd seen that on BBC, so clearly the
>breaks have considerable power, i. e. can't be delayed a minute or two.
>(Obviously I just got weather.)

I assume it will be like Gold (radio) with a high level of automation.
I assume different parts of the world will get different ads. Could
the presenter not have continued the interview and delayed broadcast
until after the break?

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:39:27 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 03/06/2023 13:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
>> which you meant.)
>
>Almost certain more served by DAB by area but by population will be VHF
>FM because of Inverness which is well served.
>
What about vehicles though, away from population centres. My
understanding was that Radio Scotland 810 kHz had the widest coverage
and I *assumed* long wave would follow similar logic.