BBC Blog Network

User Profile

cool4cads

Listed below are comments made by cool4cads between Monday, 5th January 2009 and Monday, 29th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Suggest a story 12:02pm on 29 Jun 2009 Could someone please explain why the recently released royal accounts are not being subjected to any level of scrutiny?

We've just had the scandal over MP's expenses and yet, as usual, the Windsor family are brushed over with deferential mentions and no investigation.

The palace today canceled its press conference all together, so as not to have to answer embarrassing questions. The BBC - the world's leading news broadcaster - is lapping up the royal spin like a trainee at a local paper and perpetuating the inaccurate myth that the royals cost us 'just 69p'. A figure which is calculated on total population, not on taxpayer and excludes over 100 million pounds of hidden costs.

Gordon Brown is now proposing the Royal family be completely exempt from freedom of information requests. This is the time to be asking why, what have they got to hide, before it's too late. This might be our last chance!

Come on BBC, proper news reporting not forelock touching please.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 02:51am on 10 Jan 2009 Well, I think the foolish rabbit was probably right about something: the debate is dwindling, and interestingly - or not - it has come and gone without the pro TFTD party making a single actual point.

Damazer's comments seem lucid and all encompassing by comparison to what else has been said.

So, just to recap, can I confirm that everyone of religious bent is so terrified by a bit of rationalism that - say 1 in 4 or 5 - for a non signed up witch doctor is out of the question?

Why would it be worse to hear the thoughts of, say a university don or an historian, a writer, a poet, a war hero than someone of a completely different - and so just as irrelevant and destined for damnation - faith? Why does the only qualification need to be the belief in one or more giant sky pixies?

If it was just silly, it would just be silly. But it isn't, it is discriminatory and wrong. It would not be tolerated in any comparable form, and it should not be tolerated, and will not be tolerated any longer.

I strongly suspect that if this issue is not dealt with fairly we will see a license fee revolt. And a court of law could only judge the matter one way. They, at least, are forced to deal in facts.

Oh, and, it probably wouldn't have occurred to you: but maybe the guys standing on the steps of the Whitehall building in the rain were just waiting for the team bus so they could go to the victory party?

That's where I'm going.

Peace. Out.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 2:31pm on 09 Jan 2009 Lord Coat

are you actually a lord? perhaps a catholic bishop in the house of lords? but no, your commanding manner of speech, deprecation of others and feeble arguments suggest someone who is unused to being challenged in open debate. You're not prince charles are you?

as for:

"184.LordCoat wrote:

Ah yes, an amusing rhyme indeed, but it is hardly poetry, is it? Let alone spiritual nourishment."

By what standards do you say it isn't poetry, please? As it happens, I have a BA and MA in English literature and am a multi award winning, much translated author, studied by universities in my own lifetime. And I thought the poem was rather good.

I'm certainly no arbiter of spiritual nourishment though: more of a bacon sandwich man.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 10:44am on 08 Jan 2009 rabitfoole@118:

actually, if you go back to my original comment, which started this ipm story, you will see I made it plain from the beginning that there was a social networking element to this. Though I personally came across something through facebook and am certainly nothing to do with a Richard Dawkins fan club. I've also had many a pub and dinner conversation about the issue.

If anything it only serves to illustrate the strength of feeling there is against this ridiculous anachronism if people are discussing it in so many ways and so many places.

What a joy is this world where we can use instant wireless technology to discuss antiquated desert superstitions.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 10:27am on 08 Jan 2009 Sorry, the automatic line break there makes the link fail. God moves in mysterious ways. But remove the 5 letter code from the address line in your browser after /documents/ and before t20081204.shtml and it will magically work again...
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 10:10am on 08 Jan 2009 Was forced to track it down, here's a link to the script of the most perfect piece of dramatic irony and self delusion you may ever read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20081204.shtml
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 09:28am on 08 Jan 2009 IanCEdmond@110

Mona Siddiqui's Second Life slot was indeed the most bizarre and incongruous 'Thought' I've ever heard.

Shakespeare himself couldn't have written dramatic irony better: with all intelligent members of the audience seeing the blatant folly invisible to the speaker.

To paraphrase her:

"Let's return to the real world; focus on the tangible physical life; believe in my giant sky pixie!"

I almost had to have the Heimlich maneuver administered, as I attempted to laugh, shout, weep and swallow a mouthful of bran flakes all at once.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 00:03am on 08 Jan 2009 @Happyf1sh: "If any atheists feels hard done by - get together, develop some interesting content, then send it in."

I really don't think you've got your head round this topic, have you Happy?
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 8:50pm on 07 Jan 2009 Fantastic. So pleased my comments have started this thread.

Brilliant points by all the rational majority. But special respect to:

largeorangegoblin

"I think the most worrying thing about thought for the day is a lack of response. In every other segment an opposition point of view is put across. Why should the thought for the day be unchallenged simply because it is religious?"

and

spark15

Quoting Damazer: In the midst of the three hour Today programme devoted to overwhelmingly secular concerns

"What's secular about the reporting of Shiha muslims killing Sunni muslims in Iraq? Or the ongoing naval-gazing soul-searching within the Anglican church as it tries to come to terms with women and gays .
Or maybe the reporting of the pope who thinks that people should stop doing this or start doing that."

Have to come back at:

FreddyMzungu for

"All children have an intuitive acceptance of God"

Yes they do, Freddy, that’s because they havbe an intuitive acceptance of everything adults tell them. So let’s stop telling them fibs?

and

johnmalham for

"I was struck by the thought that Though for the Day shouldn't be in a 'fact' based programme. I have faith because the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection make it the best explaination of all of those facts."

That’s fine John, and every time The Today Programme covers a story for which the best witness was someone not present at the events, writing 40 years afterwards, you can have the Thought for the Day slot too.
Suggest a story 12:29pm on 05 Jan 2009 Hi all

just wanted to suggest a story. Probably a bit controversial but I have heard from several quarters – both personal and social networking - about a growing opposition to the Thought For The Day slot on the Today programme.

Essentially, I and many other, think the inclusion of this slot for superstitious nonsense in what is Britain's leading news programme is highly inappropriate and frankly misleading. By doing so it suggests validation as factual the chosen pantheon of religions - all of which are mutually exclusive, so cannot all be correct, even if one accepted their ‘invisible friends’ central premise.

I have no problem with religious radio shows, but they should be kept well separated from those that deal with facts.

If this slot must be retained, at least, please, let it be balanced by occasional rational voices: atheist; humanist; or the just not quite so credulous.

After all, many children listen to the show over breakfast. Isn’t it enough that so many get indoctrinated both at school and at home; must they be fed extra god-bother along with their toast?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

cool4cads