JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

The UN is hardly a neutral party.

Most convicted prisoners would hardly call the system a neutral party.

Find one that works and all will agree to. I'm sure they'd give you
the Nobel Peace Prise Rand.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

Applause!

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

On 20 Oct 2003 03:05:33 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(B. Isaksen) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The UN is hardly a neutral party.

Most convicted prisoners would hardly call the system a neutral party.

I'm having difficulty seeing any analogy whatsoever.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:08:30 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


That may be so but the first reaction form the American administration
shows nothing much has changed since 1958.

Really?

What *was* the first reaction to Shenzhou 5 from the American
administration?

Well on the BBC news, a talking head in the administration popped up
and said bla bla bla then 'it's a threat to National Security'.

Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On or about Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:18:07 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:47:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:18:07 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r

Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

And no, I'm not an employee of that organization...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:47:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:18:07 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r

Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

Well Sky (aka Fox) did that "exclusive" from the submarine launching cruise
missiles which turned out not to have ever happened and the footage was made
with stock footage.

I don't often watch them as they have far fewer political interviews than
ITN or BBC.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r

Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

Well Sky (aka Fox)

Sky is not aka Fox. They're affiliated, but not the same.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r

Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

Well Sky (aka Fox)

Sky is not aka Fox. They're affiliated, but not the same.

Affliated? They are owned by the same company and have shared resources.

It's like saying BBC News 24 is only affliated to BBC Radio News.

Having spent time watching both of them, there are plenty of times when you
can't see the join. The only plus point for Fox is they tend to do more
interviews than Sky.

Rand Simberg wrote:
Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

US media, FOX and CNN in particular, tend to be very USA centric in their
coverage. And Mr Simberg's articles posted on the FOX web site show a definite
slant towards the sensationalistic coverage. On those networks, to get
something published it must be sensationalistic. Don't talk about the
successes of ISS or Shuttle, talk only of its problems, costs, mismanagement etc.

It isn't a question is presenting false information, it is a question of
selection of what information you provide.

It isn't false to report that Bush stated that he now has support from the
whole world for his invasion of Iraq. He did state that. But his statement was
false. So, is it ethical for a media outlet to report this without mentioning
that Bush lied to the population when he made that statement ?

This is a perfect example of how US media have been slanting the news to get
the masses to support one side of a debate.

Similarly, we keep hearing from US media how cash strapped Russia is and that
it won't be able to meet its commitments to the station. But if you listen to
the BBC, you'll find out that Russia is actually doing quite well with the
current oil boom, and that many western oil companies are investing in Russia.

Has Russia officially advised ISS partners that it would not be able to meet
its Progress and Soyuz commitments in the next year ? Seems to me that the
latest scredule shows that a may launch was moved to mid march, filling a the
gab left by the shuttle not launching in march.

It would be really nice to get true factual information within a full context
instead of editorialised information that need to twist a story into something
sensationalitic in order to be published.