´óÏó´«Ã½

The Glass Box.

Comments

1. At 05:10 PM on 15 Nov 2007, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   What’s a ‘gel sentence’?

2. At 05:11 PM on 15 Nov 2007, The Intermittent Horse wrote:

   Wasting time - It's what we do!

3. At 05:28 PM on 15 Nov 2007, wrote:

   PR would make all this nonsesne about selective lists totally redundant!

   The sooner the better!

   Slainte
   ed

   Carson's Consolation:
   Nothing is ever a complete failure.
   It can always be used as a bad example.

4. At 11:23 AM on 16 Nov 2007, Bernard Hall wrote:

   The item on the composer who had written music for a DVD about Pope Jeanpaul was presented in a manner which betrayed an anti-catholic undertone. Eddie introduced the item by expressing suprise that a non-catholic should do such a thing and then towards the end of the item the interviewer asked the composer did he not feel he was contributing to 'catholic propaganda'. The I found the question offensive and shocking and the composer was clearly taken aback. Would the question have been framed in such a way if the subject were about the jewish or muslim religion? How would listeners react if a ´óÏó´«Ã½ interviewer asked a question about 'Church of England Propaganda'.
   It appears that at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ respect of others faith does not extend to Catholics.

5. At 05:38 PM on 16 Nov 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   Lacking Friday's Glass Box as yet, I shall try posting here (over and over again: none of my posts today have got through. Tried at 17.10, again at 17.13, 17.18, 17.23)

   If somebody saw Madelaine McCann being carried away by a stranger, and said so *at the time*, why on earth has anyone been following any clues suggesting other things, like her DNA in a car that was hired weeks later?

   If she didn't say until now, why didn't she say while her friends were being accused and vilified all over the place?

   The mind boggles either way.

6. At 05:51 PM on 16 Nov 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   Lacking Friday's Glass Box as yet, I shall try posting here (over and over again: none of my posts today have got through. Tried at 17.10, again at 17.13, 17.18, 17.23, 17.28, 17.36)

   If somebody saw Madelaine McCann being carried away by a stranger, and said so *at the time*, why on earth has anyone been following any clues suggesting other things, like her DNA in a car that was hired weeks later?

   If she didn't say until now, why didn't she say while her friends were being accused and vilified all over the place?

   The mind boggles either way.

7. At 08:47 PM on 16 Nov 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   By the way, Bernard Hall @ 23, I am emboldened by a whole two of my posts getting through and will have a try at answering you.

   My first was that at first at anyrate the surprise was being expressed not that a non-Roman-Catholic was doing a very importantly Roman Catholic job, but that the Roman Catholic church had employed him to do it. In other words, that the suggestion was not exactly anti-Catholic, more an expectation of the Catholics being anti-him.

   The latter question about propaganda requires a definition of propaganda, and although it is today (post-Hitler, I suspect) a well-known boo-word now taken to mean 'lies', in fact it ought more to carry an overtone of 'selective truth'. We shouldn't forget that the original meaning of the word was as part of the title of a committe of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church whose job was the care and oversight of foreign missions (back in 1622, goodness gracious! and it's from an Italian-Latin title in the RC church) and it later meant a movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine or practice in order to assist or damage a cause. I don't myself think that the Pope being shown in this production as a super-terrific bloke was all that much of a good-guy-type, because I dislike some of the doctrine he supported, but I can see that one might want to make a DVD extolling his virtuous actions and ignoring his more ignoble moments... Pure propaganda, and that's what the word means. It woud be foolish to deny that something designed to show something black-and-white as containing white only must be seen as one-sided, wouldn't it?

8. At 09:05 PM on 16 Nov 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   and one last try:

   By the way, Bernard Hall @ 23, I am emboldened by a whole two of my posts getting through and will have a try at answering you.

   My first was that at first at anyrate the surprise was being expressed not that a non-Roman-Catholic was doing a very importantly Roman Catholic job, but that the Roman Catholic church had employed him to do it. In other words, that the suggestion was not exactly anti-Catholic, more an expectation of the Catholics being anti-him.

   The latter question about propaganda requires a definition of propaganda, and although it is today (post-Hitler, I suspect) a well-known boo-word now taken to mean 'lies', in fact it ought more to carry an overtone of 'selective truth'. We shouldn't forget that the original meaning of the word was as part of the title of a committe of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church whose job was the care and oversight of foreign missions (back in 1622, goodness gracious! and it's from an Italian-Latin title in the RC church) and it later meant a movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine or practice in order to assist or damage a cause. I don't myself think that the Pope being shown in this production as a super-terrific bloke was all that much of a good-guy-type, because I dislike some of the doctrine he supported, but I can see that one might want to make a DVD extolling his virtuous actions and ignoring his more ignoble moments... Pure propaganda, and that's what the word means. It woud be foolish to deny that something designed to show something black-and-white as containing white only must be seen as one-sided, wouldn't it?