<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: They&#8217;re Lucky Orwell&#8217;s Dead</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/</link>
	<description>Just another Pajamasmedia.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:06:12 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Fausta</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36448</link>
		<dc:creator>Fausta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36448</guid>
		<description>I had posted on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/exciting-day-in-news-because-of-iraqi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beeb apology&lt;/a&gt; the day before the Beeb posted its own.

Amazing.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had posted on the <a href="http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/exciting-day-in-news-because-of-iraqi.html" rel="nofollow">Beeb apology</a> the day before the Beeb posted its own.</p>
<p>Amazing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PeterUK</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36447</link>
		<dc:creator>PeterUK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36447</guid>
		<description>Harry,

You have given me one more reason to be glad I do not have a television,I don&#039;t have to subsidise your enjoyment of the BBC.

It was worth it not to have to listen to the plethora leftist twaddle on Question Time, now you have given me a bonus.Thanks


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harry,</p>
<p>You have given me one more reason to be glad I do not have a television,I don&#8217;t have to subsidise your enjoyment of the BBC.</p>
<p>It was worth it not to have to listen to the plethora leftist twaddle on Question Time, now you have given me a bonus.Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aulus Gellius</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36446</link>
		<dc:creator>Aulus Gellius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:39:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36446</guid>
		<description>Harry:



&lt;em&gt;I live in the Far East, and the BBC news is godsend compared to the shite broadcasted here.&lt;/em&gt;



Ah, I understand now. You live in North Korea.




</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harry:</p>
<p><em>I live in the Far East, and the BBC news is godsend compared to the shite broadcasted here.</em></p>
<p>Ah, I understand now. You live in North Korea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dishman</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36445</link>
		<dc:creator>Dishman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36445</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Where I live in the far east the BBC is held in very high regard, and is certainly not reducing quality here - far from it, its streets ahead.&lt;/em&gt;



That completely misses my point.  It is, in fact, almost identical to the arguement used by Ma Bell to resist breakup.  While Ma Bell&#039;s combination of quality and service was unmatched by anyone else, that was more a result of its knee-capping everyone else than anything positive Ma Bell did.  Ma Bell crippled its competitors on both revenue streams and access.



The BBC has a protected revenue stream that its competitors do not.  As such, it can provide services that its competitors cannot, which ends up largely being in terms of format (advertising).  It leaves its competitors fighting over scraps of the market.



&lt;em&gt;I note your moan about panels. The left make similar criticisms using the same sort of argument.&lt;/em&gt;  &quot;streets ahead&quot; indeed.  If nobody&#039;s feeling like their arguements are being presented well, how is that quality?




</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Where I live in the far east the BBC is held in very high regard, and is certainly not reducing quality here &#8211; far from it, its streets ahead.</em></p>
<p>That completely misses my point.  It is, in fact, almost identical to the arguement used by Ma Bell to resist breakup.  While Ma Bell&#8217;s combination of quality and service was unmatched by anyone else, that was more a result of its knee-capping everyone else than anything positive Ma Bell did.  Ma Bell crippled its competitors on both revenue streams and access.</p>
<p>The BBC has a protected revenue stream that its competitors do not.  As such, it can provide services that its competitors cannot, which ends up largely being in terms of format (advertising).  It leaves its competitors fighting over scraps of the market.</p>
<p><em>I note your moan about panels. The left make similar criticisms using the same sort of argument.</em>  &#8220;streets ahead&#8221; indeed.  If nobody&#8217;s feeling like their arguements are being presented well, how is that quality?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katherine</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36444</link>
		<dc:creator>Katherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36444</guid>
		<description>Knuck and truepeers.



I donít know why you are so upset.  Since prostitution is now sanctioned by the German Omnipotent State it is no longer wrong/immoral/degrading.  It is only a job, and anybody who refuses state-sponsored job should rightly lose State provided benefits.  I believe the article explains this point of view well.



It is really quite logical thing to do, while you look at it without your Puritan Judeo-Christian fundie homophobic misogynistic Yankee (oops, also Canadian) bias clouding your judgment.



It is the natural progression of things.  You give State rights over you and the State will use you as the State sees fit.

It also indicates that obliterating traditional religion from public life may not be terribly good idea in the long run.



I may not strictly believe in God I offer Him hearful thanks ( yet again!)  that I live the Jesusland instead of the enlightened EU.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Knuck and truepeers.</p>
<p>I donít know why you are so upset.  Since prostitution is now sanctioned by the German Omnipotent State it is no longer wrong/immoral/degrading.  It is only a job, and anybody who refuses state-sponsored job should rightly lose State provided benefits.  I believe the article explains this point of view well.</p>
<p>It is really quite logical thing to do, while you look at it without your Puritan Judeo-Christian fundie homophobic misogynistic Yankee (oops, also Canadian) bias clouding your judgment.</p>
<p>It is the natural progression of things.  You give State rights over you and the State will use you as the State sees fit.</p>
<p>It also indicates that obliterating traditional religion from public life may not be terribly good idea in the long run.</p>
<p>I may not strictly believe in God I offer Him hearful thanks ( yet again!)  that I live the Jesusland instead of the enlightened EU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerry</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36443</link>
		<dc:creator>jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36443</guid>
		<description>Harry:



There is one segment of the British population that thinks the BBC news service is trash ... the Royal Navy.  During OIF the crew and airwing of HMS Ark Royal requested that the CO switch the news from the BBC to SkyNews.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harry:</p>
<p>There is one segment of the British population that thinks the BBC news service is trash &#8230; the Royal Navy.  During OIF the crew and airwing of HMS Ark Royal requested that the CO switch the news from the BBC to SkyNews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Hazlewood</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36442</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Hazlewood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36442</guid>
		<description>This is the same BBC that shut out Winston Churchill to prevent his &#039;war-mongering&#039; speeches against evil that he, virtually alone, perceived in Hitler&#039;s Nazi Party.



The BBC has critically misjudged some very important people and some very critical events lately. They had to be draggedd,kicking and screaming, into the dock before they&#039;d admit they&#039;d defamed Blair. They never apologized for Churchill. They&#039;ll never forgive Bush for being right too often when they opposed him.



Regards,
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the same BBC that shut out Winston Churchill to prevent his &#8216;war-mongering&#8217; speeches against evil that he, virtually alone, perceived in Hitler&#8217;s Nazi Party.</p>
<p>The BBC has critically misjudged some very important people and some very critical events lately. They had to be draggedd,kicking and screaming, into the dock before they&#8217;d admit they&#8217;d defamed Blair. They never apologized for Churchill. They&#8217;ll never forgive Bush for being right too often when they opposed him.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roberts</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36441</link>
		<dc:creator>Roberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:58:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36441</guid>
		<description>Harry&#039;s response to the Gilligan scandal?  &quot;Overblown nonsense&quot;.  Harry is the perfect defender of the BBC - arrogant and without substance.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harry&#8217;s response to the Gilligan scandal?  &#8220;Overblown nonsense&#8221;.  Harry is the perfect defender of the BBC &#8211; arrogant and without substance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohninLondon</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36440</link>
		<dc:creator>JohninLondon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36440</guid>
		<description>Harry simply does not know what he is talking about.   Here in the UK we suffer every day the endless drip-drip-drip of anti-US bias on the BBC.



http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com



gives a weekly record of a lot of the bias - selection or suppression of stories,  the presenter&#039;s sneers,  the imbalanced discussion panels,  the sheer errors in information delivered.   Absolutwly shameless.  Hutton exposed it,  a recent report on the pro-EU tilt set out lots more detail.



But the BBC is made even more dangerous by its global reach.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harry simply does not know what he is talking about.   Here in the UK we suffer every day the endless drip-drip-drip of anti-US bias on the BBC.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com</a></p>
<p>gives a weekly record of a lot of the bias &#8211; selection or suppression of stories,  the presenter&#8217;s sneers,  the imbalanced discussion panels,  the sheer errors in information delivered.   Absolutwly shameless.  Hutton exposed it,  a recent report on the pro-EU tilt set out lots more detail.</p>
<p>But the BBC is made even more dangerous by its global reach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: submandave</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36439</link>
		<dc:creator>submandave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2005/01/31/theyre-lucky-orwells-dead/#comment-36439</guid>
		<description>This just emphasizes a common assumption that has always stuck in my craw.  Bad guys and ING/MNF troops shoot it out and ten civilians get killed.  &lt;b&gt;Everyone&lt;/b&gt; who reports is assumes &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; ten civilians were killed by MNF bullets.  Now, I&#039;m not so Pollyannaish to say we never hit an inncent bystander, but from the videos of the &quot;insurgents&quot; I&#039;ve seen their fire discipline is abysmal.  When you see a terrorist dropping mortar rounds into an unsteadied tube and see it bounce around after each shot the only logical conclusion is that they are much more likely to hit something they&#039;re &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; aiming at that something they are.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This just emphasizes a common assumption that has always stuck in my craw.  Bad guys and ING/MNF troops shoot it out and ten civilians get killed.  <b>Everyone</b> who reports is assumes <b>all</b> ten civilians were killed by MNF bullets.  Now, I&#8217;m not so Pollyannaish to say we never hit an inncent bystander, but from the videos of the &#8220;insurgents&#8221; I&#8217;ve seen their fire discipline is abysmal.  When you see a terrorist dropping mortar rounds into an unsteadied tube and see it bounce around after each shot the only logical conclusion is that they are much more likely to hit something they&#8217;re <i>not</i> aiming at that something they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
