"Temporary" Venting Thread II

[katya]

何が？lol

That`s a sad observation RÃ*an, but true. I don`t know why people do that, but I know the feeling.

And for the record, not that I think you were talking about me but I don`t hate that guy. It just irritates me that I still like him so much.

[Rían]

oh NO, katya, I wasn't even referring to you at ALL! I was thinking about a situation on another board.

Yeah, relationships are sure complex...

[katya]

Yeah, I figured it was something like that.

[Khamûl]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yeah, relationships are sure complex...

You can say that again. My girlfriend and I are taking an "extended break", which includes seeing other people if possible. The craziest thing is that it all happened in a calm, rational discussion. I go back and forth between being ok with it and wondering how stupid I could be to agree to it. Sorry if I'm kind of rambling, but it doesn't make too much sense to me either right now.


Oh, and technically I'm failing my internship right now even though I have so far jumped through all the necessary hoops. I got the stupid permission forms signed and left them with the secretary, but she didn't give them to the department head (apparently), so I haven't gotten credit for them. Needless to say, I have a phonecall to make tomorrow.

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

god...okay so your best friend is supposed to be nice and not talk behind your back right? best friends just dont talk behind friends backs....she said (behind my back) that she was pretending to be my friend so my parents wouldn't get mad at her and im annoying and a bunch of other things and im going to try and confront her today..i've been messed up. i cried all day last thursday and fri i was no better...some best friend right? b****

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Tamuril Sirfalas

god...okay so your best friend is supposed to be nice and not talk behind your back right? best friends just dont talk behind friends backs....she said (behind my back) that she was pretending to be my friend so my parents wouldn't get mad at her and im annoying and a bunch of other things and im going to try and confront her today..i've been messed up. i cried all day last thursday and fri i was no better...some best friend right? b****

Awww!! I feel so bad! I can't stand people who do this to other people. It's really a shame. I hope you feel better soon. There are people in the world who really do care sincerely. *hug*

[Elenka]

I'm all sad and depressed, which is bad and all, but also very inconvienient, because I happen to have a final due tomorrow and it's not going to write itself. And I'm probably not going to write it either.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Tamuril Sirfalas

god...okay so your best friend is supposed to be nice and not talk behind your back right? best friends just dont talk behind friends backs....she said (behind my back) that she was pretending to be my friend so my parents wouldn't get mad at her and im annoying and a bunch of other things and im going to try and confront her today..i've been messed up. i cried all day last thursday and fri i was no better...some best friend right? b****

Whoa. Good luck for that talk, TS. So you know, I've actually been in her shoes (a long long time ago) and the guy who I betrayed is still my best friend.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Whoa. Good luck for that talk, TS. So you know, I've actually been in her shoes (a long long time ago) and the guy who I betrayed is still my best friend.

Do you mean you are now really his friend, Bomb, or do you mean that you still pretend to be his friend?

[Lief Erikson]

I found a lumpish thread on BBC News about the War in Iraq. It's highly politically biased and outright misleading.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5053134.stm

6,000 people died of violent deaths in Baghdad in one year, the article says, and the majority of these are believed to have been killings due to sectarian violence. However, the article fails to compare that number to the ordinary Baghdad crime rate, and it also fails to compare that number to Baghdad under Saddam. Therefore, we don't know what the number 6,000 really means. The indication of the article is that our efforts in Iraq are failing, yet it fails to provide clear data to back this.

Also BBC's article on today's number 666. It references Satanist leaders who think the day is like any other day, but it doesn't reference any of those who think of it as a special or supernatural day. However, it shows more than one example of Christians who take the day and go crazy over it. The overall impression is that Christians are nutters and Satanists are normal people. PC, liberal and biased.

[sun-star]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/5054126.stm

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I found a lumpish thread on BBC News about the War in Iraq. It's highly politically biased and outright misleading.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5053134.stm

6,000 people died of violent deaths in Baghdad in one year, the article says, and the majority of these are believed to have been killings due to sectarian violence. However, the article fails to compare that number to the ordinary Baghdad crime rate, and it also fails to compare that number to Baghdad under Saddam. Therefore, we don't know what the number 6,000 really means. The indication of the article is that our efforts in Iraq are failing, yet it fails to provide clear data to back this.

Also BBC's article on today's number 666. It references Satanist leaders who think the day is like any other day, but it doesn't reference any of those who think of it as a special or supernatural day. However, it shows more than one example of Christians who take the day and go crazy over it. The overall impression is that Christians are nutters and Satanists are normal people. PC, liberal and biased.

i just read it- and it seems like a standard article outlining some released figures.

Do you happen to know what the pre-allied invasion saddam controlled Baghdad monthly violent death rates were Lief?

Why would anyone assume they were not largely due to sectarian violence when we all know that is happening heavily in Iraq - this is hardly controversial - your own government is of the same view.

I fail to see much beyond a filler news post to be frank.

Yet you seem to wish to demonise the BBC - an institution respected around the world.

why?

by the way, 6,000 means 6,000 - that's 6,000 - just to be clear!


best, BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Do you happen to know what the pre-allied invasion saddam controlled Baghdad monthly violent death rates were Lief?

No, and that is just the problem! The fact that it doesn't tell means we don't know how much worse the 6,000 figure is than what Iraq is used to. Or even if it is worse! I suspect it is, but if it's not a whole lot worse than the Baghdad deaths under Saddam, BBC should mention that fact in order to be thorough. It takes time for a country to change. On the other hand, if this is much worse than the Baghdad violence under Saddam, we should be told that! Not knowing those facts makes the figure meaningless- but the article gives it meaning by implication.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Why would anyone assume they were not largely due to sectarian violence when we all know that is happening heavily in Iraq - this is hardly controversial - your own government is of the same view.

First of all, there is insurgent violence as well as sectarian violence. Then there also is normal criminal violence. BBC should have posted how much of this violence belongs to what, and it also should have compared this year's violence to Baghdad yearly violent death rates under Saddam Hussein. That would have given us an idea for how big a change this is over what it was before.

What if in 2005, there were 7,000 deaths, and the number has actually gone down by 1,000? My point is that a detached stat like that is meaningless, but given in its detached state it lends the impression that our efforts in Iraq are collapsing without providing solid evidence that that is true. The facts do not speak for themselves when only a piece of them is given.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by sun-star

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/5054126.stm

Argh. It's not really for me to put my fingers in, I guess, but I will say that some things just don't need to be co-ed, you know? (Besides, I'm partial to preserving traditions.) The only thing that keeps me from getting real upset is that comment about women now being allowed to go anywhere at Oxford. I suppose iit really isn't fair to keep a women-only college in a place where women have carved out a place for themselves among the men.

[Lief Erikson]

That college issue is an interesting one. I haven't really thought about it ever, myself.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Argh. It's not really for me to put my fingers in, I guess, but I will say that some things just don't need to be co-ed, you know? (Besides, I'm partial to preserving traditions.) The only thing that keeps me from getting real upset is that comment about women now being allowed to go anywhere at Oxford. I suppose iit really isn't fair to keep a women-only college in a place where women have carved out a place for themselves among the men.

I do partly agree with you - I've changed my mind on this issue a couple of times. Unfortunately, it's not true that the gender imbalance has been resolved. Women are still under-represented at Oxford, and IMO this is a step backwards in the effort to change that.

[Lief Erikson]

Hmm. My sister's been studying at Oxford, and she's American. Not that that means they aren't under represented, of course. It's certainly possible that she's one of too small a number. How under represented are they?

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I do partly agree with you - I've changed my mind on this issue a couple of times. Unfortunately, it's not true that the gender imbalance has been resolved. Women are still under-represented at Oxford, and IMO this is a step backwards in the effort to change that.

All right, then I'll be mad.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No, and that is just the problem! The fact that it doesn't tell means we don't know how much worse the 6,000 figure is than what Iraq is used to. Or even if it is worse! I suspect it is, but if it's not a whole lot worse than the Baghdad deaths under Saddam, BBC should mention that fact in order to be thorough. It takes time for a country to change. On the other hand, if this is much worse than the Baghdad violence under Saddam, we should be told that! Not knowing those facts makes the figure meaningless- but the article gives it meaning by implication.

First of all, there is insurgent violence as well as sectarian violence. Then there also is normal criminal violence. BBC should have posted how much of this violence belongs to what, and it also should have compared this year's violence to Baghdad yearly violent death rates under Saddam Hussein. That would have given us an idea for how big a change this is over what it was before.

What if in 2005, there were 7,000 deaths, and the number has actually gone down by 1,000? My point is that a detached stat like that is meaningless, but given in its detached state it lends the impression that our efforts in Iraq are collapsing without providing solid evidence that that is true. The facts do not speak for themselves when only a piece of them is given.

wotcha!

that's THE BBC not BBC!!

deary me, young folk today - no respect!

I seriously doubt they have the saddam regime figures to hand, Lief - and of course even if these "figures" were available - there would be the issue of qualifying said pre-invasion Saddam Hussein regime "official" figures anyway, journalistically - that in iteself is rather a hot potatoe.

but if you think that there either were 1500 or so violent deaths every month or that the "official" party figures would show there were ...welll ...... ??????????? *BB is flabberhghasted* (you get the point! ) - this is not America (no offence!) but even in London that is many years worth of violent deaths - even for America too!!


the story is a report on this news just in ..lastest figures show etc .... it is SO carefully neutral to the point of being an assinine degree of limp reporting of the facts and say nothing at all ...

I really am gobsmaked and totally bewildered to see where you get this BBC "angle" from - at least on this particular article anyway!

One thing you can say about the oppressive dictatorial style of ol' Saddam - he did cut right down on crime - literally if given half a motive!

so really none of what you say makes any sense.

But the main hub of the matter, here, i think is a transatlantic thing: we speak english, and you guys ( heh -NO OFFENCE HONESTLY!!! ) you guys think you speak the same language!!

First of all, there is insurgent violence as well as sectarian violence.

The phrase is one and the same- it gained BBC speak and indeed generally accepted newspseak in Northern Ireland and became a norm as a news speak phrasieology. (sp???)

I have no clue whaqtsover WHAT you think the BBC are reffering to with 'sectarian' that it does not refer to the insurgency ... ...but i can ..here and now lay the record straight that the BBC in no way means to imply any involvment with reference to the phrase 'sectarian' that khorriah was in any way, shape, or form involved ...

you'll notice the lack of mention of hankees in the piece, yes?

methinks you take this the wrong way with regard to what is meant by 'Sectarian'


but well - er- that's my vent!

(good rescue heh? ..we better move this to another thread Lief! *winks*

best, BB

[Butterbeer]

Sun Star - what's your problem with equality and co-ed???????????

best BB xx