[OT] F1 Qualifying... run that past me again

Are Bernie & the gang on drugs? I'd repeat the new rules here, but they went right over my head when the BBC just ran through them. I really must learn to pay more attention now that watching F1 requires revision notes. Andrew McP... only a part time F1 fan, obviously, otherwise the Bahrain GP wouldn't have crept up on me like this. Not that the first few races count anyway. Only the European races count, everyone knows that. ;-)

After watching it this AM, I really like it. A LOT more action than any format I recall from before. The short version of the Knockout Format: Session 1 - Timed session in which all 22 drivers attempt a timed lap. Bottom 6 drivers are dropped at the end of the session and qual in P17-P22. No times valid after the session times out. Session 2 - Timed session same as Session 1. Bottom 6 drivers are dropped and qual in P11-P16. Session 3 - Timed session. Teams declare to the FIA what starting fuel level they are running. This will be the MAX level that they can top off to after the Qual session. Only other difference is that laps started before the session times out WILL count.

On 11 Mar 2006 06:40:12 -0800, "Darus" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>After watching it this AM, I really like it. A LOT more action than any >format I recall from before. > >The short version of the Knockout Format: > >Session 1 - Timed session in which all 22 drivers attempt a timed lap. >Bottom 6 drivers are dropped at the end of the session and qual in >P17-P22. No times valid after the session times out. > >Session 2 - Timed session same as Session 1. Bottom 6 drivers are >dropped and qual in P11-P16. > >Session 3 - Timed session. Teams declare to the FIA what starting fuel >level they are running. This will be the MAX level that they can top >off to after the Qual session. Only other difference is that laps >started before the session times out WILL count.

I missed the start of the show. Are they allowed to change tires in sessions 1&2?

AFAIK they can change them whenever, up to 7 sets per weekend

"Darus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > After watching it this AM, I really like it. A LOT more action than any > format I recall from before. I agree with you. It really does make qualifying interesting to watch. It's been a long time since I actually watched a qualifying round in its entirety.

[email hidden] (Darus) wrote: > A LOT more action than any > format I recall from before. I watched for a while, got bored, and forgot to turn it back on. I think the new format might work, but three sessions is pushing the limits a bit, especially as the big teams aren't going to want to push their cars any harder than they have to over such a long period. I think the "who can refuel and when and by how much" thing is an unnecessary complication as well. Still, I'm looking forward to finding out if we see much competitive racing in the new F1 cars tomorrow. It might make Sundays slightly interesting again until the Touring Cars start up. Now *that's* racing! :-) Andrew McP

"Pushing the limits a bit"? You're kidding right? MS ran a total of 2 laps in the first segment IIRC and I'll bet Ferrari wasn't the only team that ran very few laps. The 2nd segments wasn't a lap-fest either for the Scuderia and maybe another 3-4 in the final segment to take P1. Sure, it's 10x more than last year, but not so different than the 1 hour qual sessions of years ago. In fact it's a lot better for those (like me) who attend GP's. Qual sessions were pretty boring last year at Indy (only to followed up by "other" issues") but this format was setup for the fans it would seem. I do agree on the refueling plan as it seems like an afterthought. Max: "Hmmmm...this new qual plan is good. Anything want to add anything else? FIA Lackey: Sure, how about a complex refueling plan, but only for the Top 10 cars?" Max: BRILLIANT! >From reading websites, mags etc and hearing commentary, it sounds likethe FIA wants very different fuel strategies spread through the field.

[email hidden] (Darus) wrote: > n fact it's a lot better for those > (like me) who attend GP's. Qualifying days are about milking fans, and this is designed to try and make more folk turn up for the first day of the weekend. Fine, F1's a business after all. But the first two sessions are meaningless, there for show and to justify the price of entry. One slightly longer session would be more tactically entertaining, but could be more of a lottery. Which might be a good thing. Andrew McP

What a load of "created just for TV" crap!! BK "Darus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Session 1 - Timed session in which all 22 drivers attempt a timed lap. > Bottom 6 drivers are dropped at the end of the session and qual in > P17-P22. No times valid after the session times out. > > Session 2 - Timed session same as Session 1. Bottom 6 drivers are > dropped and qual in P11-P16. > > Session 3 - Timed session. Teams declare to the FIA what starting fuel > level they are running. This will be the MAX level that they can top > off to after the Qual session. Only other difference is that laps > started before the session times out WILL count. >

Gee....care to fathom who racing is catered to? With the so called "largest TV audience" in the world, I guess "created for TV" is just what the doctor ordered. You have a better idea? Lemme guess....the old 12 lap/1 hour session where all the teams hid in the paddock until 10 minutes remained and then went out and exchanged fast times between the same 4 drivers? Yep, entertaining TV no doubt.

"Darus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Gee....care to fathom who racing is catered to? With the so called > "largest TV audience" in the world, I guess "created for TV" is just > what the doctor ordered. You have a better idea? Lemme guess....the old > 12 lap/1 hour session where all the teams hid in the paddock until 10 > minutes remained and then went out and exchanged fast times between the > same 4 drivers? Yep, entertaining TV no doubt. >

Agreed. The best change, IMO, is the tire rule. The one set per race thing sucked, at least for me. I hope that they get a bit more of close racing. Last year was an improvement, but 3-4 cars on the lead lap (educated guess) average per race is still sometimes boring. Anyone know if they are going back to slicks? I think moving to slicks and decreasing downforce might help some.......But the big money teams would probably still be able to design around it. Ed

Can't speak for anywhere else, but Indy is $25 for Fri/Sat combo and $15 for Saturday only. I'm already there anyway. Don't feel like I am getting "milked". Plus all the support race stuff going on. A single longer segment would be a return to the "old days" of all the cars waiting for the backmarkers to clean off the track and then the "big" teams rolling out with 5 min left to claim their spot. I would support a 20 minute/6 lap limit session in which all teams were required to roll out within 1 minute of the start of the session. This would accomplish what I want to see in a Qual session. All out speed, no regard for having to "save tires" or "pick a fuel level" or other horseshit rules. Get all 22 cars on the frigging track and run HARD. Simple!

[email hidden] (Ed Medlin) wrote: > The best change, IMO, is the tire rule. Agreed. Andrew McP

Andrew MacPherson wrote: > Are Bernie & the gang on drugs? I'd repeat the new rules here, but they > went right over my head when the BBC just ran through them. I really > must learn to pay more attention now that watching F1 requires revision > notes. > BBC? ITV, surely? What it boils down to in the end is pandering to commercial TV. 1. Qualifying is split into several "sessions" to allow TV companies to have long-ish commercial breaks without viewers complaining about their coverage being interrupted. (You think this is bad in qualifying? Wait until they bring out the pace car every 20 laps in the GPs so we can have more commercials!) 2. The "best" teams are the only ones allowed on track in the final session, and that's where the top times are set. That allows TV companies from attention-deficiency-syndrome countries to show just the final session if they want. The ITV commentators themselves admitted that the "breaks" between the qualifying sessions weren't long enough to allow the teams to do any meaningful work or adjustments on the cars - obviously the format is just for the benefit of commercial TV.

Darus wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Can't speak for anywhere else, but Indy is $25 for Fri/Sat combo and > $15 for Saturday only. I'm already there anyway. Don't feel like I am > getting "milked". Plus all the support race stuff going on. > > A single longer segment would be a return to the "old days" of all the > cars waiting for the backmarkers to clean off the track and then the > "big" teams rolling out with 5 min left to claim their spot. I would > support a 20 minute/6 lap limit session in which all teams were > required to roll out within 1 minute of the start of the session. This > would accomplish what I want to see in a Qual session. All out speed, > no regard for having to "save tires" or "pick a fuel level" or other > horseshit rules. Get all 22 cars on the frigging track and run HARD. > Simple! >

What date is the US Grand Prix at Indy this year?

>I think the "who can refuel and when and by how much" thing is an >unnecessary complication as well. I thought so to until one of the Speedtv guys gave the rational, the more laps you run in the 3rd session the faster you go because of the lowered fuel load, so each team is encouraged to run as many or more laps then the other guys. This keeps the maximum cars out on track in front of the fans instead of them all waiting until the last 2 minutes. At least that's the theory. I imagine monaco will throw a monkey wrench into it... The first session is to eliminate the wheat from the chaff and the 2nd is to give TV time for the mid feilder's sponsors..... Of course it's all for TV, what do you think timeouts are for in Football and basketball, Hockey has TV breaks built in as well, they're called penalties. The one car at a time qualifying was like watching paint dry (or like watching nascar qualifying)...

Actually think the FIA finally did some things right with V8s, more tires, and the new qual format. Qualifying is now worth watching now even if it blows past some folks. Wag "KeithB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ckRf.1357$[email hidden]... Andrew MacPherson wrote: > Are Bernie & the gang on drugs? I'd repeat the new rules here, but they > went right over my head when the BBC just ran through them. I really > must learn to pay more attention now that watching F1 requires revision > notes. > BBC? ITV, surely? What it boils down to in the end is pandering to commercial TV. 1. Qualifying is split into several "sessions" to allow TV companies to have long-ish commercial breaks without viewers complaining about their coverage being interrupted. (You think this is bad in qualifying? Wait until they bring out the pace car every 20 laps in the GPs so we can have more commercials!) 2. The "best" teams are the only ones allowed on track in the final session, and that's where the top times are set. That allows TV companies from attention-deficiency-syndrome countries to show just the final session if they want. The ITV commentators themselves admitted that the "breaks" between the qualifying sessions weren't long enough to allow the teams to do any meaningful work or adjustments on the cars - obviously the format is just for the benefit of commercial TV.

errr....only ONE 'now' is needed. ----- Original Message ----- From: B Wegner Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [OT] F1 Qualifying... run that past me again Actually think the FIA finally did some things right with V8s, more tires, and the new qual format. Qualifying is now worth watching now even if it blows past some folks. Wag

mcewena wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>I think the "who can refuel and when and by how much" thing is an >>unnecessary complication as well. > I thought so to until one of the Speedtv guys gave the rational, the > more laps you run in the 3rd session the faster you go because of the > lowered fuel load, so each team is encouraged to run as many or more > laps then the other guys. This keeps the maximum cars out on track in > front of the fans instead of them all waiting until the last 2 minutes. > At least that's the theory. I imagine monaco will throw a monkey > wrench into it...

Or some engineer will develop a gas guzzling engine map that can use up half a tank in the outlap or maybe an aircon option as a health & safety gesture for the Malaysian heat which mysteriously fails starting the first flying lap? Seriously though I think it is agood step to return to those exciting qualifying sessions with traffic and multiple laps without the waiting game for the lower runners to lay the rubber down. Cheers Tony

Tony Rickard wrote in news:n9mRf.35509$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> mcewena wrote: >>>I think the "who can refuel and when and by how much" thing is >>>an unnecessary complication as well. > >> I thought so to until one of the Speedtv guys gave the >> rational, the more laps you run in the 3rd session the faster >> you go because of the lowered fuel load, so each team is >> encouraged to run as many or more laps then the other guys. >> This keeps the maximum cars out on track in front of the fans >> instead of them all waiting until the last 2 minutes. >> At least that's the theory. I imagine monaco will throw a >> monkey >> wrench into it... > > Or some engineer will develop a gas guzzling engine map that can > use up half a tank in the outlap or maybe an aircon option as a > health & safety gesture for the Malaysian heat which > mysteriously fails starting the first flying lap? > > Seriously though I think it is agood step to return to those > exciting qualifying sessions with traffic and multiple laps > without the waiting game for the lower runners to lay the rubber > down. > > Cheers > Tony >

They only get a gas credit for those laps that are faster than 107% of the ultimate pole time. And the gas credit, IIRC, is a calculated value: don't ask me how it is calculated. So if the driver goes out and does a bunch of slow laps to burn off gas, he won't get any gas to replace that used in those slow laps. That's what happened to MS, and he refered to the "missing" lap's worth of fuel as costing him the race. If he had had that extra lap added in, he could have stayed out longer and Fernando wouldn't have been able to beat him out of the pits that last time. Since drivers don't know ahead of time what the pole position time is going to be, they have to drive moderately fast to get their laps to count. Not the same as full out speed, but still, better than just cruising around to burn off fuel. -- Darryl

"KeithB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ckRf.1357$[email hidden]... > What it boils down to in the end is pandering to commercial TV. So how do you think we get to watch sport on TV for free. Someone has to pay. Stop complaining and enjoy what your getting.

[email hidden] (KeithB) wrote: > BBC? They talked about the race on BBC Sports News. Andrew McP

Darryl Johnson wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>Or some engineer will develop a gas guzzling engine map that can >>use up half a tank in the outlap > They only get a gas credit for those laps that are faster than > 107% of the ultimate pole time. And the gas credit, IIRC, is a > calculated value: don't ask me how it is calculated. > > So if the driver goes out and does a bunch of slow laps to burn > off gas, he won't get any gas to replace that used in those slow > laps.

Hence I said outlap. Some bright spark will find a means of developing the worst fuel economy - a whole new challenge!

"Bruce Kennewell" wrote... > What a load of "created just for TV" crap!! Agreed, previous format was better, except for the "same tyres and fuel as you start the race with"-idiocy. Jan. =---

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:17:39 GMT, Tony Rickard wrote: > > Hence I said outlap. Some bright spark will find a means of developing > the worst fuel economy - a whole new challenge! I can see lots of SUV manufacturers lining up to enter F1 racing... the odds have changed. I predict F1 will then become the most popular sport in the USA ;^) cheers, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Which previous format? 1 hour, 12 laps - Aggregate times - What? And by excluding the "same tyres and fuel as you start the race with" means you DIDN'T like the previous format, you'd prefer a DIFFERENT format.

>What a load of "created just for TV" crap!! So you saw it in person from Bahrain? Unless you're bernie you tend to watch your races from TV and they tend to have comercials that have to be sold based on audience count..

"Darus" wrote... > Which previous format? 1 hour, 12 laps - Aggregate times - What? Last year's format: one flyer a piece as it offered equal airtime to all teams and favoured the "excellent" drivers. Even HHF managed a competitive time in the 12 lap format from time to time. > And by excluding the "same tyres and fuel as you start the race with" > means you DIDN'T like the previous format, you'd prefer a > DIFFERENT format. While I applauded the move to individual qualifying, I never understood this twist the FIA chose to add to the proceedings. Qualifying is about pure performance; if teams can put forward their preferred starting fuel levels with this system of qualifying, this could have been implemented last year as well. The only other course of action, IMNSHO, is to legislate teams should qualify, then start starting from the maximum amount of fuel allowed onboard, as it's done in Nascar. Jan. =---

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> [email hidden] (KeithB) wrote: > >> BBC? > > They talked about the race on BBC Sports News. > > Andrew McP >

Aaah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

Izzy wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "KeithB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8ckRf.1357$[email hidden]... >> What it boils down to in the end is pandering to commercial TV. > > So how do you think we get to watch sport on TV for free. Someone has to > pay. >

Err, you mean F1 actually costs money? And the TV coverage costs money as well? Oh dear. Well of course that completely undermines my whole position because I had absolutely no idea that was the case. I thought the whole thing was magicked up by Mr Frizzibumble the magician waving his big wand over a top hat, and the pictures simply popped out and jumped down the wires to our TV sets. <Pauses to take medication... :-) > Izzy, let's be serious here for a moment. Who paid when the BBC were covering F1 in a much more viewer-friendly and professional way? Why can't we go back to that system again? Why have we got to the state where the TV companies are allowed to screw around with the rules of the sport so that they can make more money, at the expense of us getting worse coverage? > Stop complaining and enjoy what your getting. > Why should I not complain about something which is sub-standard and could be so much better? Why should I be lazy and apathetic? Why should I enjoy something that has been spoilt by greed and commercialism? Why should I silently put up with my enjoyment of a sport being corrupted and polluted by money-obsessed control-freaks, mainly from outside that sport? (BTW Bernie 'rich-as-Malawi-and-Botswana-put-together' Ecclestone is one example of a money-obsessed control freak who is INSIDE F1. It's not all the fault of the TV companies.) If you're perfectly happy with the way that big business and commercialism are encroaching ever further into our lives, making us watch adverts more and more, and trying to sell us things that we don't want, then you're lazy and/or gullible. And if you're so lazy and/or gullible that you just want to roll over and take it up the rear, then fine. You do that. I hope it brings a smile of pleasure to your face. If you can still look at yourself in the bathroom mirror in the mornings, despite your lack of self-respect, then that's great. Me, I've got more balls than that. I don't like being pushed around. I may not be able to win against big business, but I can sure as hell make a lot of loud and vehement noise. And no-one has the right to tell me to stop.

No. I didn't "watch it in person from Bahrain." And neither did I watch it in person in front of the TV. I didn't watch it. Period. I gave up watching this sort of manufactured-for-TV pap years ago. Tracks designed specifically for TV, abso-bloody-lutely ridiculous rules designed for TV and costs and strictures that have completely banished just about anything other than a manufacturer's team to the graveyard. F1? No. Grand Pricks? Oh, most definitely. BK "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >What a load of "created just for TV" crap!! > > So you saw it in person from Bahrain? > > Unless you're bernie you tend to watch your races from TV and they tend > to have comercials that have to be sold based on audience count.. >

> > ....they tend to have comercials that have to be sold based on audience count.. > Which is precisely the problem. When those commercials become the overall driving factor ('scuse the pun) behind the sport, the sport suffers.

KeithB wrote: (BIG SNIP) > Izzy, let's be serious here for a moment. Who paid when the BBC were > covering F1 in a much more viewer-friendly and professional way? Why > can't we go back to that system again? Why have we got to the state The viewers, who have to buy a license to own a television. I still can't wrap my brain around that concept. Very kind of them to only charge half price to the blind. I think I'd buy a radio instead. Don McCorkle

Woodie83 wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> KeithB wrote: > > (BIG SNIP) > > > Izzy, let's be serious here for a moment. Who paid when the BBC were > > covering F1 in a much more viewer-friendly and professional way? Why > > can't we go back to that system again? Why have we got to the state > > The viewers, who have to buy a license to own a television. I still > can't wrap my brain around that concept. Very kind of them to only > charge half price to the blind. I think I'd buy a radio instead. > > > Don McCorkle

Unfortunatly you also need a license to own a radio.

> > The viewers, who have to buy a license to own a television. ... > > Don McCorkle Exactly. And given the quality of the coverage, and the quality of the racing, I was one of those viewers (and my parents too) who were very willing to pay that price. And I still am prepared to pay for all the other excellent independent coverage and programming we get from the BBC. There are a number of people around the world who can't understand the British/BBC licensing system. The main benefit it has is to free the broadcaster from excessive commercial pressure. And in turn, that removes the need for the BBC to pressurise the organisers of live events to change their rules to make the presentation more profitable, at the expense of the participants and viewers. It's true that the license fee has to be monitored and approved by the UK government, which has led to some POLITICAL pressures being placed on the BBC when they don't toe the government line (e.g. the Iraq war). But that is such a sensitive issue with the British public that the government can never take that tactic too far, and has never been able to bring the BBC to heel in the way that George Bush has with Tony Blair. This issue of independence, unbiased coverage, and transparency is one of the most fundamental issues which people have to face up to today, and goes far beyond the spoiling of F1 coverage. Democracy is all about making INFORMED decisions about the kind of government you want, and the kind of world you want. The question is, when big business is paying for your TV time, can you and should you believe everything you are told through your "tube"? If anyone wants a slightly more relaxed take on this, I recommend Sidney Lumet's film "Network", starring Faye Dunaway, William Holden, the amazing Peter Finch, and Robert Duvall. A superb black comedy which will have you laughing at the crazy antics of a ratings-grabbing TV station.

[email hidden] (KeithB) wrote: > I still am prepared to pay for all the other excellent > independent coverage and programming we get from the BBC. Absolutely. There's increasing pressure to get rid of the fee, but gawd help us if that ever happens. The BBC anchors British broadcasting in a unique way which allows us to punch above our weight in the English-speaking world. Andrew McP

>I gave up watching this sort of manufactured-for-TV pap years ago. So what you're saying is that no format would satisfy you and what ever they do is moot so why should Bernie & co. be concerned by your reaction to this change?

>one flyer a piece as it offered equal airtime to all >teams and favoured the "excellent" drivers Yeah but there was always some doubt as to whether a drivers qualifying performance was his own doing or the result of his fuel load...

KeithB: "If you're perfectly happy with the way that big business and commercialism are encroaching ever further into our lives, making us watch adverts more and more, and trying to sell us things that we don't want, then you're lazy and/or gullible. And if you're so lazy and/or gullible that you just want to roll over and take it up the rear, then fine. You do that. I hope it brings a smile of pleasure to your face. If you can still look at yourself in the bathroom mirror in the mornings, despite your lack of self-respect, then that's great. Me, I've got more balls than that. I don't like being pushed around. I may not be able to win against big business, but I can sure as hell make a lot of loud and vehement noise. And no-one has the right to tell me to stop." <makes room so that you can hop down off the soap box...> Can't speak for anyone else, but I am neither lazy nor gullible. Adverts for products on TV here (the US) are as commonplace as credit card mailings and I have tuned them all out with surprisingly little difficulty. No one "makes me watch" these ads when they are aired, in fact the vast majority are fast forwarded thru via DVR (for the very early races EST) or ignored while I top off my coffee (wakey wakey, eggs and bakey) during the Sun AM F1 prerace at 0730 EST. Continuing, the adverts that I do see offer little in the way of convincing me to buy a particular product or brand. So as you can see, the adverts are simply a required evil for me to get the F1 coverage on SPEED. Do I mind? No. If blowing hot air and beating your chest all over the internet about your "balls" makes you feel better, then enjoy. Your statement "I can sure as hell make a lot of loud and vehement noise. And no-one has the right to tell me to stop" reminds me of the the saying: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make any noise?

I'm not suggesting for one minute that the Ecclestone Corporation be concerned by my reaction. All that I am doing is airing my opinion...exactly the same as you. There ~is~ a format that would satisfy me but it relates more to catering for the driver rather than the TV-audience. BK "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > So what you're saying is that no format would satisfy you and what ever > they do is moot so why should Bernie & co. be concerned by your > reaction to this change? >

>Can't speak for anyone else, but I am neither lazy nor gullible. >Adverts for products on TV here (the US) are as commonplace as credit >No one "makes me watch" these ads when they are aired Yes but the conviently placed pee breaks aren't the only cost of the advertisments... They've recently started showing BBC's Top Gear in Canada on BBCCanada (specialty station for BBC to get a 2nd chance to sell their programming) and I think it's on Discovery in the US. I love it! They say what they like about a car and they say what they hate about them too, and wether you agree with there assesment or not it's really refreshing to hear. Plus they shoot cars from catapults at camper trailers and who doesn't love that? I thought why can't a dedicated car channel like Speedtv produce a show like that for the US market instead of mindless stuff like Pinks, American Chopper, Speedfreaks or NBS247? Then I realised I answered my own question. There's no way they'd have the balls to seriously critizise any of the major car companies and then be able to get advertizing revenue out of them.. I'm not volunteering to pay a TV licence but there's something to be said for the producers not having to worry about offending the guys with the advertizing budgets too....

Not quite unique. The Australian ABC, a free-to-air system for radio (all bands, all frequencies) and TV (ditto) must, by legislation, provide an Australia-wide, no-cost and commercial-free, non-partisan, secular service. (The only "advertising" permitted is for ABC-related "stuff"). This broadcasting system is entirely funded by the Federal Government (using part of our taxes, naturally enough) and that is the way it has been since inauguration in the 1920's. Once-upon-a-time the ABC did have a licensing system similar to, and for the same reasons as, the BBC, but licences were dropped in (if memory serves me correctly) the 1960's. There is a current move by some fools to try and introduce advertising on "Auntie" (as the service is affectionately known) but the reaction from the Prime Minister just this week was a resounding "No!". I have a feeling that New Zealand also has a similar system. BK "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [email hidden] (KeithB) wrote: > The BBC anchors British broadcasting in a > unique way which allows us to punch above our weight in the > English-speaking world.

[email hidden] (mcewena) wrote: > but there's something to be said for the producers not having > to worry about offending the guys with the advertizing budgets > too.... Exactly, whether we're talking about cars or anything else. FWIW Top Gear is probably my favourite TV show these days, and I don't even drive a real car. (The insurance and petrol is a lot cheaper in GPL. ;-) Andrew McP

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Not quite unique. > > The Australian ABC, a free-to-air system for radio (all bands, all > frequencies) and TV (ditto) must, by legislation, provide an Australia-wide, > no-cost and commercial-free, non-partisan, secular service. (The only > "advertising" permitted is for ABC-related "stuff"). > This broadcasting system is entirely funded by the Federal Government (using > part of our taxes, naturally enough) and that is the way it has been since > inauguration in the 1920's.

Actually, I guess it's not all that different here in the States. We have PBS which is mostly paid for with tax dollars, so it's a similar thing. The aggravating thing to me is that very few people watch it, and it's rather left-wing. Don McCorkle

[email hidden] (Woodie83) wrote: > and it's rather left-wing. This isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation. The USA has grown so incredibly right wing to outside observers that "left wing" probably just means closer to the centre of the political spectrum, which is probably where public broadcasting out to be. As for its popularity... well, quality has never been particularly popular. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is usually the best way of getting your audience figures up. Andrew McP

"mcewena" wrote... >> <snip> > Yeah but there was always some doubt as to whether a drivers > qualifying performance was his own doing or the result of his > fuel load... Exactly, that was the second part of my argument, as you might have read in my post. <g> Jan. =---

Andrew once again grasps at a straw but pulls out shit. This isn't to be insulting, just an observation. Europe has as a whole has lost its fn mind. You have been LED like sheep to slaughter by your extreme LIBERAL moonbat media and policy makers yet somehow come to a conclusion the USA is going farther right, thats fn laughable.. It has nothing to do with right vs. left and everything to do with right vs. wrong and you my friend are wrong! Europe is proving once again, just as it has throughout history that as a people you are incapable of making the tough choice. Your history of appeasment and reletavism has been proven a complete failure over and over yet you have the nerve to talk about which you know nothnig, America. How many Americans died in street rioting over cartoons this year? When it all collapses AGAIN (France is going fast) you will cry till the USA comes to bail you out of your self induced fantasy world, once again. The difference this time is we arent coming to save your asses from yourselves. Facts are facts Moonbat, spin it any way you want! "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (10 lines)

> This isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation. The USA has grown > so incredibly right wing to outside observers that "left wing" probably > just means closer to the centre of the political spectrum, which is > probably where public broadcasting out to be. > > As for its popularity... well, quality has never been particularly > popular. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is usually the best > way of getting your audience figures up. > > Andrew McP

>This isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation. The USA has grown so incredibly right wing to outside observers that "left wing" probably just means closer to the centre of the political spectrum, which is probably where public broadcasting out to be. In this case, what Don means is America's lunatic fringe 'left-wing' (save a few programs) - probably closer to your 'left-wing.' Our government should do a better job of forcing a balance since the taxpayers subsidize it (<read> I pay for a network that no one watches) and almost 60% of the people say they are center-to-right leaning. That said, the programming should not be right-wing either, just balanced - an American balance not a European one :) >As for its popularity... well, quality has never been particularly popular. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is usually the best way of getting your audience figures up. I agree with you whole-heartedly........although one could argue that PBS does even offer quality anymore. Virtually all of the popular shows in America are mind-dulling; primarily aimed to entertain the lesser educated - which is becoming a larger part of our society due to a teacher's union that is more interested in baby-sitting than teaching. Wag "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [email hidden] (Woodie83) wrote: > and it's rather left-wing. This isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation. The USA has grown so incredibly right wing to outside observers that "left wing" probably just means closer to the centre of the political spectrum, which is probably where public broadcasting out to be. As for its popularity... well, quality has never been particularly popular. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is usually the best way of getting your audience figures up. Andrew McP

They must be connected to the Teacher's Federation out here; at least their aims and ideologies appear the same. Only within the last few months have the authorities woken up to the fact that we have "educated" a whole generation of illiterates through the late 1970's and onwards. They can do sums and multiplication tables but can't spell their street names and think grammar is a close relation. BK "B Wegner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Virtually all of the popular shows in America are mind-dulling; primarily aimed to entertain the lesser educated - which is becoming a larger part of our society due to a teacher's union that is more interested in baby-sitting than teaching.

Somebody collect up all the Fire Extinquishers. We're gonna need them! -Larry "Mitch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C6iSf.47829$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> Andrew once again grasps at a straw but pulls out shit. > > This isn't to be insulting, just an observation. Europe has as a whole > has lost its fn mind. You have been LED like sheep to slaughter by your > extreme LIBERAL moonbat media and policy makers yet somehow come to a > conclusion the USA is going farther right, thats fn laughable.. It has > nothing to do with right vs. left and everything to do with right vs. > wrong and you my friend are wrong! > > Europe is proving once again, just as it has throughout history that as a > people you are incapable of making the tough choice. Your history of > appeasment and reletavism has been proven a complete failure over and over > yet you have the nerve to talk about which you know nothnig, America. How > many Americans died in street rioting over cartoons this year? > > When it all collapses AGAIN (France is going fast) you will cry till the > USA comes to bail you out of your self induced fantasy world, once again. > The difference this time is we arent coming to save your asses from > yourselves. > > Facts are facts Moonbat, spin it any way you want! > > > "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> This isn't meant to be insulting, just an observation. The USA has grown >> so incredibly right wing to outside observers that "left wing" probably >> just means closer to the centre of the political spectrum, which is >> probably where public broadcasting out to be. >> >> As for its popularity... well, quality has never been particularly >> popular. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is usually the best >> way of getting your audience figures up. >> >> Andrew McP > >

/rant filter "on"

"Mitch" <[email hidden]>... > <snip> How many Americans died in street rioting over > cartoons this year? I don't know... did any Europeans bite the dust in this orchestrated uproar? > When it all collapses AGAIN (France is going fast) Lost me there... what are you talking about: social, political, economical? > you will cry till the USA comes to bail you out of your > self induced fantasy world, once again. On the subject of self-induced fantasies: how's that Iraq thing working out? <g> Jan. =----

Larry wrote: > Somebody collect up all the Fire Extinquishers. We're gonna need them! Mitch has probably got his nomex underwear on in preparation...

Sorry, I may have missed the thrust of this thread. Was someone attempting to intimate that Americans weren't thick?

In article <C6iSf.47829$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mitch) wrote: > Andrew once again grasps at a straw but pulls out shit. LOL. Are you drowning or waving, Mitch? I can't tell? ;-) Andrew McP... guilty of starting the most wayward RAS thread for months! Sorry folk. PS France's time will come in the rapidly approaching energy supply crisis. Their nuclear power stance will put them in a very strong position to compete against more fossil-dependent nations. (They already export electricity to the UK for example).

[email hidden] (B Wegner) wrote: > Virtually all of the popular shows in America are mind-dulling I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong. We might have Top Gear, but we struggle to match the excellent writing and production standards US broadcasters can put together on a consistent basis. Andrew McP

[email hidden] (Bruce Kennewell) wrote: > we have "educated" a whole generation of illiterates This is getting way off topic, but what the heck. I think this is true almost everywhere now. I personally think it's down to the improved quality of life in recent decades. Generations which don't have to struggle hard tend to adopt different mindsets, and a more comfortable generation of parents tends to generate a less motivated generation of kids. Teachers can't really be blamed because they have a hard job meeting the demands of parents (who seem to increasingly want their children raised, not just educated by teachers) and governments whose targets shift regularly. Messy subject though. Andrew McP

On the subject of self-induced fantasies: how's that Iraq thing working out? <g> Jan. Pretty good Jan considering it's only been 3 years......in what historical context could you tell of one country taking over another and starting some semblance of self-governance in that time period? Many mistakes were and continue to be made as pointed out everyday in a left-wing media which only serves to try to weaken public support. Good thing the media over here didn't have the bias nor the communication networks of today during WW2 to report everything that happened wrong over there; don't you think that it would have eroded public support in the same manner as our Vietnam fiasco? If it did there's a good chance you'd be living in Greater Germany right now. <g> IF Iraq can be a relatively stable democracy in 10 years than the cost in lives and dollars times 10 will be worth it for America's future generations. (and frankly, for generations of the World's population even if you don't want to admit it) 1) One murderous dictator sitting on 1/6 of the world's energy supply out of power. 2) 26 million people with the ability to choose their own fate (for better or worse); at least it's their choice. 18 million of them not living in fear or repression anymore. 3) Most importantly, is the strategic location of Iraq. You will start to see the crumbling of terror states like Iran and Syria from within. The people will see freedom in their own backyard and revolution from repressed peoples will be inevitable. Do you not see the significance of driving the wedge of democracy into the heart of Mesopotamia? A sword between terrorist enabling countries of Syria and Iran? Do you not realize that being in Iraq gives us the ability to having forward staging bases in order to attack Iran when it becomes (and it WILL become necessary whether old Europe sees it or not)? Or do you not see a problem with the biggest terrorist supporting nation having the capability to put a nuclear warhead into downtown Brussels in the next two years? Think that's impossible? Let's sit on our hands and see when it's your ass on the line and not ours. BTW, how many years after WW2 did it take to stop the smattering of guerilla-like violence from Nazis and their sympathizers? 10-15? We're dealing with religious fanatical barbarians. They believe they have the religious DUTY to claim land from past military triumphs of the 7th Century, and then convert the masses to Islam or kill them. All in the name of Allah - and will fight to the death to accomplish it. Were the Nazis ever this hell-bent on victory? I think not save a few looney-tunes. So given the nature of the enemy, we're doing a fine job in Iraq. Wag

I have a funny feeling of deja vu coming over me. (Cue "Twilight Zone" theme) Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and, I think, Leonard V. Brezhnev all said something similar in times past. In fact, didn't King George say much the same around 1775? BK "B Wegner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... So given the nature of the enemy, we're doing a fine job in Iraq.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:27:46 GMT, Mitch wrote: Sorry Mitch. While I do respect you as a fellow racer on the track, rants like this little gem you produced here will keep you in my killfile for the time being. Please notify us ahead of your next forged posting address update so I can prepare myself. Thanks in advance & all the best, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Great to see that the thread has maintained its intended course!

>3) Most importantly... But I thought it was all about WMDs? >Do you not realize that being in Iraq gives us the ability to having forward staging bases in order > to attack Iran Too bad the appreciation for democracy wasn't discovered when the Shaw (sp?) was in power

>I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce >The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong. For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust". I imagine it's the same on the other side of the pond. It costs less to put together a crap show that appeals to the masses then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer... lowest common denomotaer marketing.

Mitch wrote: > Andrew once again grasps at a straw but pulls out shit. > > This isn't to be insulting, just an observation. Europe has as a whole has > lost its fn mind. You have been LED like sheep to slaughter by your extreme > LIBERAL moonbat media and policy makers yet somehow come to a conclusion the <Snips out the puddle of drool and spittle...> > > Facts are facts Moonbat, spin it any way you want! > > Didn't I see you in the supporting cast of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?"

Darus wrote: > > <makes room so that you can hop down off the soap box...> > Why thank you sir, I appreciated your good manners. > Can't speak for anyone else, but I am neither lazy nor gullible. (Just tranquillized/anaesthetised by your own media and lifestyle.) > Adverts for products on TV here (the US) are as commonplace as credit<...> > buy a particular product or brand. So as you can see, the adverts are > simply a required evil for me to get the F1 coverage on SPEED. Do I > mind? No. But as I have stated previously, it's not just ad-breaks that are the problem. When the actual CONTENT of the programming and/or its format is being manipulated, that raises questions of quality and impartiality. > > If blowing hot air and beating your chest all over the internet about > your "balls" makes you feel better, then enjoy. Ok, sometimes I might get a bit TOO passionate about media manipulation and such subjects, and it may damage my credibility a bit. But at least I care. If we live in a democracy, how can we make decisions about how to run our lives, and how to run our country, if we don't have an open, impartial, well-rounded view of the world we live in? Most of the population of the U.S. is beyond help in this regard. Your education system is so poor, and your media companies have so much control over your thought processes that you no longer have an objective point of view. Example? When the French government democratically decided not to join in with Bush and Blairs' illegal war, and tried to use civilised diplomacy to help the situation in Iraq, the U.S. media (under advice from the White House) immediately started an anti-French propaganda campaign which has ended up with Americans refusing to eat "French fries", burning the French flag, and spitting at French people walking down the street. The media didn't use any humour in the campaign, and it wasn't done as friendly "mickey-taking". It was orchestrated with anger, vitriol and spite. That is media victimisation. In principle, it's exactly what Hitler did to the Jews in the late 1930's. And you people, just like the Germans in the 1930's, allowed yourselves to be manipulated into it. Darus, why don't you just complete the job that your government and media are doing on you, and change your name to THX1138? > > If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it > make any noise? > Given the number of posts in this thread, there appear to be quite a few people listening to the falling timber, and chopping down quite a few trees of their own as well! :-) (Cue quick chorus of "I'm a Lumberjack and I'm ok, ....")

Your sweeping generalizations (of me and <apparently> my fellow US countrymen) are impressive... 1. (Just tranquillized/anaesthetised by your own media and lifestyle.)...Have you ever met me? Don't judge me, you know nothing about me. 2. Most of the population of the U.S. is beyond help in this regard.... 3. Your education system is so poor ....Admittedly the education is the US isn't top shelf, yet I still see plenty of places far worse off. I'll take my chances (and BA degree) here. 4. ...and your media companies have so much control over your thought processes that you no longer have an objective point of view...Again, don't pretend to know how/what influences me on a daily basis. There is no "objective" point of view...a person POV is ALWAYS skewed in some way, if only when compared to ANOTHER POV that differs. 5. As for the poor country of France and their "persecution" at the hands of the US media...GOOD. Screw'em all I say! My personal hatred of the frogs started with the "no fly" zone incident when Libya was a world threat and the US (again) was the driving force behind stopping (another) international nutjob. I'm <sure> France had THAT situation covered as well. If so many ppl. from all over the world didn't want to see that lovely lady holding the torch in NY, I'll vote to take the Statue of LIberty, load it on a USAF cargo plane, and drop in in downtown Paris! Now, anyone see the practice times for STR in Malaysia? :-)

[email hidden] (Darus) wrote: > Don't judge me, you know nothing > about me. Whether we like it or not, we are all victims of stereotyping via our leadership & media and the public face it turns to the world. At the moment George Bush, Pat Robertson, and Fox News is the public face of the USA, which is a pretty difficult stereotype to live down, especially after the second win. > Now, anyone see the practice times for STR in Malaysia? No. Nice try though. :-) Andrew "Chim-chimeny" McP

Is anyone else bored to death with that new show Howie Mandell is hosting? It would be fun. IF it moved along about 200% faster. Jeez.... For me, my favorites are: 1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;) 2. Lost. 3. Sopranos. 4. Deadwood (Brilliant show). 5. CSI, when it's a good episode. 6. Crossing Jordan. 7. Tripping The Rift. -Larry "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce >>The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong. > > For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with > Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust". I imagine it's > the same on the other side of the pond. > > It costs less to put together a crap show that appeals to the masses > then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer... lowest common > denomotaer marketing. >

>Is anyone else bored to death with that new show Howie Mandell is hosting? The 30 second commercials he does for a pizza chain are almost as much of him as I can stand. A 1 hour game show? I'd rather race in rascar. >1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;)Saw the first 30 minutes of season 1, I thought if any one of the 4 disasters were followed up it could be interesting but they went for maximum overkill. >2. Lost.never seen it, it's on my list to pirate when it comes out on DVD though >3. Sopranos.Got bord after season 2, still brillant though >4. Deadwood (Brilliant show).Never seen it >5. CSI, when it's a good episode.head guy too preachy, they used a cattle trough and desk fan to simulate wind and currents to find a body WTF...!!?? Marg h, wow! >6. Crossing Jordan.like it, wrong time of day >7. Tripping The Rift.oh hum..

The 30 second commercials he does for a pizza chain are almost as much of him as I can stand. A 1 hour game show? I'd rather race in rascar. Saw the first 30 minutes of season 1, I thought if any one of the 4 disasters were followed up it could be interesting but they went for maximum overkill. never seen it, it's on my list to pirate when it comes out on DVD though Got bord after season 2, still brillant though head guy too preachy, they used a cattle trough and desk fan to simulate wind and currents to find a body WTF...!!?? Marg h, wow! like it, wrong time of day oh hum..

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4eGSf.249838$oG.145224@dukeread02...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Is anyone else bored to death with that new show Howie Mandell is hosting? > > It would be fun. IF it moved along about 200% faster. Jeez.... > > For me, my favorites are: > > 1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;) > 2. Lost. > 3. Sopranos. > 4. Deadwood (Brilliant show). > 5. CSI, when it's a good episode. > 6. Crossing Jordan. > 7. Tripping The Rift. > > -Larry

All good, along with "NCIS", "House" and "Bones". Elrikk

"B Wegner" wrote... > > Pretty good Jan considering it's only been 3 years...... > <snip> > We're dealing with religious fanatical barbarians. <snip> > So given the nature of the enemy, we're doing a fine job in > Iraq. Ah... but before reality filtered back to the US, democracy was going to restored by January last year and the barbarians were an oppressed people who'd only be too happy to be liberated by the US army. Certainly that was the impression I got from Mitch as he brushed aside my misgivings with regard to the invasion and therefore I attempted to rub his face in it a little. So, apologies, I wasn't expecting anyone to attempt a reasonable response. Seeing as this whole deal has gone far enough off topic already, I won't enter into public exchange with you. Feel free to decipher my spamblock if you're interested in an exchange of opinion. Jan. =---

"Larry" wrote... Just for fun, the ones that have already aired over here. > <Snip> > 1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;) Thriller for people who can't handle proper thrillers > 2. Lost. Reality TV with a script and actors. > 3. Sopranos. Quite good, indeed. > 5. CSI, when it's a good episode. Patronising and moralising. Jan. =---

Just for fun, the ones that have already aired over here. Thriller for people who can't handle proper thrillers Reality TV with a script and actors. Quite good, indeed. Patronising and moralising. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:kuUSf.323065$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> "Larry" wrote... > > Just for fun, the ones that have already aired over here. > >> <Snip> >> 1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;) > > Thriller for people who can't handle proper thrillers > >> 2. Lost. > > Reality TV with a script and actors. > >> 3. Sopranos. > > Quite good, indeed. > >> 5. CSI, when it's a good episode. > > Patronising and moralising. > > Jan. > =--- > > >

Unfortunately, the BEST American show on Television is no longer on TV. Firefly. A cute cuddlely Sci-Fi/Western/Chinese/Comedy/Action show. It's not slapstick, but it's humour will sneak up on you in teeny tiny bits. There was a movie released last year that tied up some of the storyline. Serenity. The ship's logo is on my TPTCC league car. http://fireflychinese.home.att.net/promo/index.html it's too late to save, but this page may make a quick summary. http://www.feoamante.com/FeoNews/articles/FireFly/Save_Firefly.html

In ohter words a troll, eh Jan... To get a reasonable response perhaps you should include the truth, common sense and occasionally a FACT or two that supports your argument. You have none of the above so I ignored your rambings as I do any liberal moonbat scratching for existence with propaganda and bullshit. Its kinda funny actually, I didnt start this thread yet I seem to be the lighting rod. I guess the truth hurts too much for your liberal hallucinations..... Mitch "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > So, apologies, I wasn't expecting anyone to attempt a reasonable response. > > > Jan. > =--- > >

Very, very true. And, right now, because of this very fact, tens of thousands of Britons think that every Australian walks around saying "bloody hell!" in every sentence we utter to each other. BK "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [email hidden] (Darus) wrote: > > Whether we like it or not, we are all victims of stereotyping via our > leadership & media and the public face it turns to the world.

[email hidden] (Bruce Kennewell) wrote: > tens of thousands of Britons think that every Australian walks > around saying "bloody hell!" in every sentence we utter to each > other. It's OK Bruce, we all know what Aussies are *really* like. Mainly because you can't run a corner in this country without bumping into one. Are there any young people left in Australia? Well, apart from all the young Brits filling aircraft in the opposite direction, obviously. ;-) Andrew McP

"Mitch" wrote... > In ohter words a troll, eh Jan... > <snip> Reply to the business end of my post, Mitch. Jan. =---

Andrew, Apart from the imported back-packers (from every country in Europe plus plenty from the United Kingdom) there are one or two youths still down here, yes. One of them is my 22-year old son. I think you folk need him over there, actually. :) Bruce "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Are there any young people left in Australia? Well, apart from all theyoung > Brits filling aircraft in the opposite direction, obviously. ;-)

With 20/20 hindsight history still shows that the U.S. military forces did a great job in Vietnam against guerilla warriors despite the political upheaval and lack of battlefield doctrine for jungle warfare. The US did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam (you can look that up) - the war was lost on the political side. Would you not say that the military did a great job despite the lack of support for it? The Iraq war isn't likely to be lost on the political side even though the approval ratings are down. The reason is that most reasonable politicians realize that the fight for Iraq is now the main battle ground against Al Qaeda. Only the fringes of the left-wing call fail to see this and call for a pullout. (The people who generally get the most air time on the news here) I don't know Russian politics well so I won't comment. Wag "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... I have a funny feeling of deja vu coming over me. (Cue "Twilight Zone" theme) Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and, I think, Leonard V. Brezhnev all said something similar in times past. In fact, didn't King George say much the same around 1775? BK "B Wegner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... So given the nature of the enemy, we're doing a fine job in Iraq.

It wasn't all about the WMDs - that's how it was sold to the public to garner support. Ironically, all of the major intelligence agencies agreed with that assessment and I believe our government made a mistake in selling it that way because they thought it was a sure thing (just like everyone else did). BTW, ask the Russians where it went - they supposedly helped to transport it out to Syria in 2001. I believe, and several recent books support my belief, that the war is one whose main goal was to drive out a dictator and replace it with a democracy that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East. The strategic location of the land should not be dismissed though either. It's geographic location and energy resources made it more important than, then say, Syria in the war on terror. If you are speaking of the Shah of Iran, I agree with you. Our past foreign policy failures are a disgrace. They had been lacking any long-term continuity or moral basis. There are so many holes you could poke in the policies from the recent past that you'll get no argument here. I think the main difference with us bringing it now is that the war was brought to us and so public support has allowed for the policies to shift. Not so when they attacked our embassies in '96 for example. Wag "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >3) Most importantly... But I thought it was all about WMDs? >Do you not realize that being in Iraq gives us the ability to having forward staging bases in order > to attack Iran Too bad the appreciation for democracy wasn't discovered when the Shaw (sp?) was in power

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3mUSf.323051$%[email hidden]... "B Wegner" wrote... Ah... but before reality filtered back to the US, democracy was going to restored by January last year and the barbarians were an oppressed people who'd only be too happy to be liberated by the US army. It's just the poor and inaccurate way our government sold this war. The sad part is that honesty would have worked better. Certainly that was the impression I got from Mitch as he brushed aside my misgivings with regard to the invasion and therefore I attempted to rub his face in it a little. I'm not speaking for Mitch, he's entitled to his opinion just the same as we are. I now see the logic in your response. Although you didn't need to rub his face in it. You're a better person than that even if I disagree with you on virtually everything :) So, apologies, I wasn't expecting anyone to attempt a reasonable response. Seeing as this whole deal has gone far enough off topic already, I won't enter into public exchange with you. Feel free to decipher my spamblock if you're interested in an exchange of opinion. That's for sure - F1 qualifying to political flame-fest. LOL! If we can't get along or agree to disagree then we're really up shits creek without a paddle because the terrorists will use it to drive a wedge between us. Wag Jan. =---

No shit - these so-called reality shows make me sick - talk about mid-numbing. "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce >The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong. For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust". I imagine it's the same on the other side of the pond. It costs less to put together a crap show that appeals to the masses then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer... lowest common denomotaer marketing.

1) The Shield 2) 24 3) Prison Break 4) CSI 5) Anything Motorsports related Wag "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4eGSf.249838$oG.145224@dukeread02... Is anyone else bored to death with that new show Howie Mandell is hosting? It would be fun. IF it moved along about 200% faster. Jeez.... For me, my favorites are: 1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;) 2. Lost. 3. Sopranos. 4. Deadwood (Brilliant show). 5. CSI, when it's a good episode. 6. Crossing Jordan. 7. Tripping The Rift. -Larry "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce >>The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong. > > For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with > Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust". I imagine it's > the same on the other side of the pond. > > It costs less to put together a crap show that appeals to the masses > then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer... lowest common > denomotaer marketing. >

"B Wegner" [email hidden]> wrote in message > - the war was lost on the political side. The funny thing is: the war was never lost as such. The US forced the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table through comprehensive bombing, got a declaration of peace and left. TWO years later, the North reinvaded and took the South and, by that time, there was absolutely no desire on the part of the US to get involved again. Hardly the fault of the US that the South steadfastly refused to take responsibility for there own defense. The end result was that the war was pointless from the start, but it wasn't lost. The peace was lost and that's the South's fault. It's similar to Taiwan now. If they think the US will protect them if China invades, they're in for a big surprise. ps If the politicians would just declare war (something the US has not done since WW2) and then step aside and let the military do it's job, the war in Vietnam would have been over years before the US withdrew.

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > The funny thing is: the war was never lost as such. The US forced the > North Vietnamese to the bargaining table through comprehensive > bombing, got a declaration of peace and left. TWO years later, the > North reinvaded and took the South and, by that time, there was > absolutely no desire on the part of the US to get involved again. > Hardly the fault of the US that the South steadfastly refused to take > responsibility for there own defense. The end result was that the war > was pointless from the start, but it wasn't lost. The peace was lost > and that's the South's fault. > > It's similar to Taiwan now. If they think the US will protect them if > China invades, they're in for a big surprise. > > > > ps If the politicians would just declare war (something the US has not > done since WW2) and then step aside and let the military do it's job, > the war in Vietnam would have been over years before the US withdrew. > > >

Remember too, that Senator Kennedy got all funding for support of the South Vietnamese cut off. So no more American bullets for the guns they had, no more fuel for the jets they flew, no more repairs for the American tanks we'd given them. Truly, even with continued funding, SVN was not capable of stopping the Northerners...but we seemed to do everything possible to hasten the end. dave henrie

B Wegner wrote: > (...) > BTW, how many years after WW2 did it take to stop the smattering of > guerilla-like violence from Nazis and their sympathizers? 10-15? Since you asked, violence stopped pretty quickly (in a matter of days) in western Europe after the fall of Berlin. The fact that the war was fought against an organised army contributed to that, of course, as did the beginning of a long stand-off between what was to become NATO and the USSR. Also no real nation-building effort was necessary, since the war had erupted between well organised nation-states (except for the Balkans). BTW, the birth of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community, a baby European Union), occured only 6 years after the war which was quite a feat considering centuries of animosity between european nation-states. Having said that, I don't think it makes much sense to compare Iraq to Europe or Japan after WWII, or to Vietnam. As I said before Operation Iraqi Freedom, think about another Lebanon (in the 80's). In fact, the analogy is even more accurate today: you just have to replace Israel by the US and Syria by Iran. In any case, I blame Eccelstone for this thread. Regards, Mr. Sylvestre

Mitch, Have you ever thought of starting a blog ? Please, do. Mr. S.

Agreed. They should be on my list. -Larry "Elrikk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:G2OSf.5989$[email hidden]... > All good, along with "NCIS", "House" and "Bones". > > Elrikk > >

I actually liked that show too. The latest SciFi channel trio aren't bad either, but their seasons are too damned short. -Larry "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:kuUSf.323065$[email hidden]: > > Unfortunately, the BEST American show on Television is no longer on TV. > Firefly. A cute cuddlely Sci-Fi/Western/Chinese/Comedy/Action show. It's > not slapstick, but it's humour will sneak up on you in teeny tiny bits. > > There was a movie released last year that tied up some of the storyline. > Serenity. > > The ship's logo is on my TPTCC league car. > http://fireflychinese.home.att.net/promo/index.html > > it's too late to save, but this page may make a quick summary. > http://www.feoamante.com/FeoNews/articles/FireFly/Save_Firefly.html

I can't believe I forgot Monk :) -Larry "Elrikk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:G2OSf.5989$[email hidden]... > All good, along with "NCIS", "House" and "Bones". > > Elrikk > >

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> writes: > Very, very true. > And, right now, because of this very fact, tens of thousands of Britons > think that every Australian walks around saying "bloody hell!" in every > sentence we utter to each other. You don't?! But, you are all named Bruce, aren't you? /Andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

> Firefly. A cute cuddlely Sci-Fi/Western/Chinese/Comedy/Action show. And I could look at & listen to Gina Torres all day... ;)

Well, yes, there is that take on it, certainly. But then a similar thing could be said about the Titanic; the Captain, crew and passengers did a marvellous job, even though the designer let them down slightly. Bruce "B Wegner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... With 20/20 hindsight history still shows that the U.S. military forces did a great job in Vietnam against guerilla warriors despite the political upheaval and lack of battlefield doctrine for jungle warfare. The US did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam (you can look that up) - the war was lost on the political side. Would you not say that the military did a great job despite the lack of support for it?

>But then a similar thing could be said about the Titanic; the >Captain, crew and passengers did a marvellous job, even though >the designer let them down slightly. Especially if you leave out that full-steam-ahead-thru-an-icefield-at-night bit...

>But then a similar thing could be said about the Titanic; the Captain, crew and passengers did a >marvellous job, even though the designer let them down slightly. Despite that full-steam-ahead thru an icefield bit....

Yeah, just like all Frenchmen are 'Jacques, all Italians 'Luigi', all Spanish 'Manuel', all Swedes 'Sven'....etcetera. BK "Andreas Davour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > You don't?! But, you are all named Bruce, aren't you? >

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> writes: > Yeah, just like all Frenchmen are 'Jacques, all Italians 'Luigi', all > Spanish 'Manuel', all Swedes 'Sven'....etcetera. Great, I can rest assured in my preconceptions again! :) /Sven -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

True...but that was at the order of one of the company's senior executives....not the Captain. Bruce "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >But then a similar thing could be said about the Titanic; the Captain,crew and passengers did a >marvellous job, even though the designer let them down slightly. > > Despite that full-steam-ahead thru an icefield bit.... >