Where do you get your news?
strea...@earthlink.net
Everyone's talking about how evil TV is. I still stick to my original
thought of "It's YOU that makes it that way" Use yer brain, folks, and
don't let it control you.
But I DO notice, when my Mom comes to visit, she watches TV news
faithfully from 6pm to 7pm and THEN goes right to the "pseudo news" shows,
"20/20" and "Nightline" (I think?)
Ever watch those? Yikes! There is no news, actually, just "paranoia scare"
TV stuff about "who's out to get you". If all you saw was that crap along
with Jerry Springer, you'd get a truly warped idea of the state of
mankind.
I don't even read the paper (much) I really enjoy radio news coverage.
I've exclusively gotten my news that way for over 10 years.
What about you?
Susan
HAF DWC
chosen. Other than that I don't care about news. I find most of the BS topics
on the local news are laughable. When there is something really big going on
like with moron husain I watch cnn. I don't watch much tv. I forget to turn it
on LOL.
Dana
Roseanne Liska
(weekly) newspaper, Leesburg Today. It's mainly local news, once in a while
if there's something worthwhile they put in some world news... I like to read
the weather and basically what's going on locally... :-)
--roseanne :)
strea...@earthlink.net wrote:
--
Roseanne Liska @ Spectrum Computers
http://www.spectrum-computers.com
http://www.webcreations-va.com
mailto:rose...@spectrum-computers.com
Affordable Hardware, Networking, Web Hosting and Design
From the Desk of Toto: Hated Oz, Took the Shoes, Went Home!!
Dan Goodman
has more than the print editions do -- and also comics); BBC website; AP
news feed; South China Morning Post (Hong Kong English-language paper).
For these and other sources, look at http://www.ecola.com
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Jonathan W Hendry
> I don't even read the paper (much) I really enjoy radio news coverage.
> I've exclusively gotten my news that way for over 10 years.
> What about you?
I get my news from radio (NPR and BBC, when possible) and off the
web (Wall Street Journal, Nando Times, BBC, Yahoo's newswires,
sciencedaily.com, salonmagazine.com). No need to waste trees, and
I get a better spectrum of views: US vs. foreign, liberal vs.
conservative.
I don't think the US TV news shows can do a very good job, due to their
time/length constraints. They are also very selective, and a lot
of stuff doesn't get reported. They'd rather spend half they show
reporting on the impeachment, and the other half reporting on the
latest snowstorm, as if weather is something new.
Kynvelyn
<streamliner-09...@1cust213.tnt2.syracuse.ny.da.uu.net>,
strea...@earthlink.net wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Everyone's talking about how evil TV is.
>
>I don't even read the paper (much) I really enjoy radio news coverage.
>I've exclusively gotten my news that way for over 10 years.
>
I listen to the radio during the day, mostly talk radio. If something
important locally is going on, it will be commented on by the local
callers. From the evening to 1 AM I listen to the shortwave. Curious how
the rest of the world sees the headlines from the US. Plus the shortwave
puts out a lot of information without all the annoying comercials that
dominates commercial radio and television.
I can still be busy getting things done while listening to the radio.
Doc
f...@hotmail.com
local papers (one in my mum's town and one in mine), and The Weather Channel
online for forecasts. Oh, and www.washingtonpost.com for some of the Post
columns that I like. I watch the local news on TV if I happen to be home and
I feel like it, but that's not very often. We do not subscribe to newspapers
(less clutter; everything I need from the newspaper is online anyway and it
takes me less time to find it).
Fiona
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
PALEONUTS
news as well as some of the Sunday talk shows. But, frankly, I don't really
think I'm getting the unvarnished truth here. News shows are becoming
"infotainment" or even worse. Whatever the networds decide is news is what is
reported....is what a great many of us rely on as being the"truth". If all we
hear on the news is about murder/rape/robbery, then we think we're all in dire
danger. If all we hear is about "one scandal after another" & impeachment,
many people believe every word. I keep hearing people berating the "liberal
media", but I think they've got it backwards.
Sandy
mark_mannix
competitor who'll provide keyword news, automatically?
Sara Miller
www.pointcast.com - you download free software and choose the sources you want
to see articles from. Helps if you're good at ignoring advertising of course,
since the browser flashes it at you regularly in the frame to pay for itself.
The software defaults to a screen saver version, but I disable that and just
bring it up when I want to update and read it.
Sara
Dan Birchall
forecast. There are a couple free "alternative press" weeklies we
can pick up a block from home, so we read those. Very little in the
way of "real news" but at least they've got events calendars, and
they recycle well. Radio... sometimes. If I really want news, I'll
look online. www.cnn.com, www.news.com, www.excite.com, www.slashdot.org
and www.phillynews.com are bookmarked.
-Dan
--
Dan Birchall, Haddonfield NJ. Linux, NEC Versa 2000C, Cannondale
"Make sure wheel is correctly attached to bicycle before riding!"
Jonathan W Hendry
> >danger. If all we hear is about "one scandal after another" & impeachment,
> >many people believe every word. I keep hearing people berating the "liberal
> >media", but I think they've got it backwards.
> Bingo,
> ABC is owned by Disney
> CBS is owned by Westhinghouse
> NBC is owned by GE
> FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch
>So when was the last time you heard about the evils of nuke power (GE and
>Westinghouse both make them)? I watch those corporatized shows, I sometimes
>listen to NPR (brought to you by Archers Daniels Midland [ADM]). When Brinkley
>left I was appalled that he immediately became a shill for ADM, guess he was
>one all along, it is now clear.
It's also 'funny' how the 'liberal' media contains so many right-leaning
talk shows and so few left-leaning ones. When www.salonmagazine.com was
digging into Starr's Whitewater investigation, why didn't anyone else
pick it up?
Jethro...@90210.com
Forget the television news, it's really mostly just propaganda by the
government-controlled media, same as the AM/FM radio station
newscasts.
--- Jethro Bodine ---
[ This Signature is currently "Out of Order".
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. ]
ileneb
be, given the education level in the general population around here. A
while back,it seemed to "dumb down", I think finding itself in competition
with the "tabloid" style newspaper. I buy the New York Times on Sunday.
NPR if in the car at the right time, but not for daily news.
McNeil-Lehrer report if I'm awake (work nights). Peter Jennings if there's
anything that actually might need to be on TV.
I scan magazines like crazy at the library (Atlantic, Harper's, U.S. News.)
Online, there's CNN Online and USA Today, which actually has some good
headline news stuff. It does appear they all take their cues from the wire
services.
I have a friend who work overseas for an international wire service. He
often sends me offbeat items from the international wire that *don't* make
it into the general news.
I worked in TV news for several years in the 70s, during the time I didn't
own a TV. Problem is, ownership of news aside, most news is not visual. TV
is a visual medium. Therefore, twist the info to match what pictures are
available. A "good story" is a tornado or a fire- lots to show. Anything
abstract is very difficult to show, so cover something else or put up
tortured graphics (the economics stories never to be forgotten). If you
see the written script for TV news, local and national, you'd be amazed
how few words are actually involved.
Even the Oklahoma bombing- once you saw the building ruins, there's
nothing to *show*. You need words and print for good info.
Ilene B "I know, I'm rabid on the subject"
Jethro...@90210.com
>
>Jethro...@90210.com wrote in message
><369af742...@news.tyler.net>...
>> IMHO, shortwave radio is better for news than regular AM/FM.
>>Forget the television news, it's really mostly just propaganda by the
>>government-controlled media, same as the AM/FM radio station
>>newscasts.
One would have to be naive to believe that the government
doesn't control the media. What do you think the FCC & other
government regulatory agencies are all about? A TV or radio station
cannot even broadcast in the US without official government permission
(ie., FCC "license").
I noticed a couple of years ago, when Jerry Falwell was
broadcasting the truth about Bill & Hillary Clinton, .... Falwell was
pulled off the air. I could no longer find his program anywhere. I
am certainly no fan of Jerry Falwell, but I was certainly interested
in the scoop on Clinton. Fortunately, I was later able to procure a
copy of "The Clinton Chronicles", which was basically the same
evidence that Falwell was broadcasting. Now I know why certain people
wanted to shut-up Falwell.
>>
>Hmmm. Perhaps you should be posting to the
>newsgroup alt.conspiracy.
I can't post there anymore ...they're all out to get me.
Hee, hee, hee. [ I hope you realize I'm just kidding. ]
> I detect a political agenda
>that has more to do with separatism than with simplicity.
>
I have no use for politics (nor politicians), I consider it
all a waste of time.
Once you clean out all the junk & simplify your life, you
finally have time to _think.... read & _think some more. Oppresive
governments consider free-thinkers a highly dangerous threat.
Governments prefer that we all remain dumb, ignorant "sheeples".
If the power-mongers can just keep us all addicted to
mass-consumerism, the "boob tube", shopping at the mall, adding to our
beanie baby collection, etc., keeping us too busy in worthless
endeavors, or keeping us in debt too busy working & paying for
worthless junk .... then we would never have time to _think & realize
that our freedoms are eroding. By the time a lot of people wake up,
it will be too late for them.
When I say "read", I mean the books that the government,
banksters, and assorted other unscrupulous characters _don't want you
to read. You can find these sort of books at :
(1) www.loompanics.com
(2) www.javelinpress.com (www.javelin-press.com) ?
(3) www.paladinpress.com
There are other websites as well, that's just a small sample.
Some books that I highly recommend:
(1) "Restoring the American Dream" by Robert Ringer ---
currently out of print. Try a book locating service such as Peter
Henessy (sp?)
(2) "The South Was Right"
(3) Any of the books by Boston T. Party (Javelin Press), I
met the author at a Preparedness Expo and his books are all excellent.
(4) "The Clinton Chronicles", also available on video.
(5) "Not For Packrats Only" by Don Aslett
It's quite a shock, when you finally have time for free
thought & you begin to realize that people you once trusted have been
lying to you all your life. Some of them purposefully; but the
latter majority of them (friends, family, neighbors, aqquaintances)
unknowingly, because they had already been deceived/brain-washed
themselves by the former group. Of course, I blame the former group
and not the latter.
Yeah, I am also anti-TV. I am constantly astounded by the vast
majority of people who I have met, that get their belief & value
system from television.
In regards to your comment on "separatism", the more I see,
hear, & learn .... it seems increasingly like a good idea. One
example that quickly comes to mind, is the furor 2 years ago over
those d*** "tickle-me-elmo" dolls. I saw video footage of people
_literally trying to kill one another over a cheap clump of cloth,
plastic, & wires that probably cost less than $2 to manufacture.
Would you really like to live, work, eat-out, etc. in close
association with people like that? Yeah, "separatism" sounds better
all the time.
I'll probably get flamed for all this, but I don't care. I'm
entitled to my own beliefs & opinions. I hope that I didn't stray too
far off-topic. My point in a nutshell:
Simplicity gives a person time for free-thought, in which one
realizes that reality is shockingly far different from what one had
previously perceived. I know that this has been a long-winded post,
but I think my previous statement sums it up in a simple fashion.
Jethro...@90210.com
>
>Jethro...@90210.com wrote in message
><369bd16f...@news.tyler.net>...
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:11:09 -0800, "Nita" <nita...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Jethro...@90210.com wrote in message
>>><369af742...@news.tyler.net>...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>> I have no use for politics (nor politicians), I consider it
>>all a waste of time.
>> Once you clean out all the junk & simplify your life, you
>>finally have time to _think.... read & _think some more. Oppresive
>>governments consider free-thinkers a highly dangerous threat.
>>Governments prefer that we all remain dumb, ignorant "sheeples".
>
>
>The above is indeed a political position.
Perhaps.
>Which you certainly have a right
>to hold, but be aware many people living the "simple" life have come to very
>different conclusions.
Already aware of that, thanks. You could have any number of
people witness/experience the same particular event, and each one
would have a different perspective or viewpoint.
>
>There is no one right way to think. One of the most profound freedoms we
>enjoy is freedom from oppression by an organized religion or by one
>political party that dictates how we must think or speak.
True, but what I am saying is that there are many people
(not just myself) who have become aware of the erosion of our freedom.
Plus, many of us realize that there are certain power-hungry people
who are determined to eradicate those same freedoms, including those
you just mentioned.
>
>I read recently that the Chinese government is going nuts trying to control
>the internet -- they are banning various sites but clever hackers are
>foiling their efforts. If you think we have censorship in the U.S. just
>browse through the newsgroups -- I would say there is as much
>anti-government sentiment as one could wish for. Along with every kind of
>kooky opinion on any subject you could mention.
True. There are a lot of kooks out there and a lot of stuff on
the net that I don't like, but I would rather have a free internet
than to have it regulated by any government --- whether U.S., China,
or whomever.
Incidentally, the U.S. government is also *going nuts trying
to control the internet.* I wonder if the Chinese government is also
using the same excuses [lies], .... that they are only wanting control
of the internet to eradicate porn (esp. child porn) and "save the
children." [BTW, if you believe them, I have some marshland in Death
Valley that I can let you have .....real cheap.]
The main difference between China & the U.S. is that here we
still have some [albeit dwindling] protections. The power-hungry
people I mentioned earlier consider these protections nothing more
than obstacles to circumvent & eventually eliminate.
It's not so much that the U.S. is so "good", but that so
many nations are so much worse.
>None of this has much to do with "simplicity" except that those who are
>interested in this subject encompass a wide range of people with a wide
>range of political views. Cleaning out the junk and beginning to think does
>not necessarily lead to your conclusions. So please speak for yourself, not
>for the rest of us.
>
>
You and I may both agree that we have the right to differ in
our beliefs, opinions, & lifestyles. However, there are some people
in this world, who not only believe theirs is the only way, but would
not hesitate to use any means possible to force the rest of us to
comply. Some of those people are even native-born Americans living in
the U.S., and a lot of them are even organized & working together.
[The preceeding statement would surprisingly come as a shock to some.]
Concerning this one idea, to believe otherwise would not only be
naive, but might also even prove fatal. Of course, you're free to
disagree with me on even this one point if you want. You just can't
honestly say that I didn't try to warn you.
However, as you also mentioned, I'm concerned that this
discussion has strayed too far from the topic of "simplicity". If by
any chance you would like to continue, I suggest we take this to a
more appropriate NG, .....perhaps "alt.conspiracy"? I think that a
simple "yes" or "no" posted here would suffice.
I believe my main point from my previous post (the one that
you are commenting upon) was:
Simplicity gives a person time for free-thought, in which one
realizes that reality is shockingly far different from what one had
previously perceived.
I believe you misunderstood me. Allow me to clarify. I did
_not mean that one would come to the same conclusions as myself. I
merely meant that ...given time to think for oneself, one would most
likely have a drastic change in one's personal perception of reality.
Was that explanation clear enough? I apologize if I failed
to make myself more clearly understood.
As for my original post in this thread, ..... Personally, I
just don't trust TV or "public" radio stations. I'm expressing my own
personal viewpoint. So, I am extremely biased in that respect, .....
does that necessarily entail a political agenda?
mark_mannix
as it began attempting to reach for a broader audience and, yes, began
accepting corporate underwriting. I still listen, and they're still
the best national news source on radio, but they're no saints.
cmq...@primenet.com (Charles Quinn) wrote:
> In article <19990111070750...@ng-cf1.aol.com>, pale...@aol.com (PALEONUTS) wrote:
> >I'm a little bit of a "news junkie"...and listen to the local & national TV
> >news as well as some of the Sunday talk shows. But, frankly, I don't really
> >think I'm getting the unvarnished truth here. News shows are becoming
> >"infotainment" or even worse. Whatever the networds decide is news is what is
> >reported....is what a great many of us rely on as being the"truth". If all we
> >hear on the news is about murder/rape/robbery, then we think we're all in dire
> >danger. If all we hear is about "one scandal after another" & impeachment,
> >many people believe every word. I keep hearing people berating the "liberal
> >media", but I think they've got it backwards.
>
> Bingo,
>
> ABC is owned by Disney
> CBS is owned by Westhinghouse
> NBC is owned by GE
> FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch
>
> So when was the last time you heard about the evils of nuke power (GE and
> Westinghouse both make them)? I watch those corporatized shows, I sometimes
> listen to NPR (brought to you by Archers Daniels Midland [ADM]). When Brinkley
> left I was appalled that he immediately became a shill for ADM, guess he was
> one all along, it is now clear.
>
> My favorite source is Pacifica Radio, Some of their shows are available via
> the net and real audio. They take no corporate money and are quite critical of
> the commercial news outlets.
>
> http://www.pacifica.org
>
> FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting is also interesting and they have
> a show called Counterspin that can be heard at
>
> http://www.fair.org
>
> Charles
> democracy is dying
> I see no one crying
>
>
mark_mannix
too-talky publicity, but it didn't answer some of my questions as
straightforwardly as I'd like. Mind if I ask you instead?
Is it keyword-specific? It says I can 'customize' the sources and
"type" of news I want, but does 'cistomize' mean what I want it to
mean? I'd want something a bit more specific than "movie news" from
the Los Angeles Times. Can I teach it to specifically fetch only LA
Times stories that mention "cocaine" or "crack", as an example?
Second question is, pointcast says it will replace my screen-saver
with news news news, so when I go to the bathroom news will be on my
screen. Simply put, I can't tell you how much I wouldn't want that.
I'd like to pick the times I get my daily dose of bad news. Can the
"screen saver" function be overridden?
Thanks for your help!
And if the answer is no to either of these questions, I'd sure
appreciate anyone who could point me toward a source where the answer
is yes...
peace,
Mark
Noel Lynne Figart
Nick Halloway wrote in message ...
>
>The federal government has been gathering more and more power to itself
>... nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about the federal
>government having the right to regulate what people put in their bodies.
>The federal government can wage a "war on drugs" only by a legal sleight
>of hand where they're really just "regulating interstate commerce", a
>power granted in the constitution. So if DEA agents arrest someone for
>making methamphetamines, the pretext is that they're "regulating
>interstate commerce".
LOL. Not one basic agent in training I've ever run across really has that
much knowledge of the US Constitution.
They think they're saving kids. Really. That's how they're indoctrinated.
Never mind that a no-knock entrance is more likely to get a kid shot. (No,
that only happens in less than 1% of the arrests, but once is too often).
____________
Noel, Axe of the Babs, Mum to the Genius in the High Chair,
and She who Truly Groks Coffee
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/6419
AOL Instant Messenger: NoelFigart
ICQ # 3479805
jojo
Drudge Report at http://www.drudgereport.com/
WorldNetDaily at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
Georgia Politics at http://www.georgiapolitics.com/
Spinternet at http://www.spinternet.com/
Capitol Hill Blue at http://www.capitolhillblue.com/
News Max at http://newsmax.com/
Metaplus at http://www.metaplus.com/headlines.html
Calnews at http://www.calnews.com/
Intellectual Capital at http://www.intellectualcapital.com/index.html
Fox News at http://foxnews.com/
...just to name a few ...
jojogun
Thank goodness for the net and shortwave.
mark_mannix
strea...@earthlink.net
The "simple" answer would have been, "the 'net"
Susan
tomd
jojo wrote:
> Nealz Nuze at http://boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
> Drudge Report at http://www.drudgereport.com/
> WorldNetDaily at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
> Georgia Politics at http://www.georgiapolitics.com/
> Spinternet at http://www.spinternet.com/
> Capitol Hill Blue at http://www.capitolhillblue.com/
> News Max at http://newsmax.com/
> Metaplus at http://www.metaplus.com/headlines.html
> Calnews at http://www.calnews.com/
> Intellectual Capital at http://www.intellectualcapital.com/index.html
> Fox News at http://foxnews.com/
>
> ...just to name a few ...
that's way too complicated...
:-)
-tommyD
jojo
tomd wrote:
>
> that's way too complicated...
>
> :-)
>
> -tommyD
I know. I know. But I tried to make it simple.
I guess the simplest way to go would be tuning
into Pravda central, CNN.
Marilyn
>
> Just before high-siding, jojo <toco...@hotmail.com> shrieked:
>
> : I know. I know. But I tried to make it simple.
> : I guess the simplest way to go would be tuning
> : into Pravda central, CNN.
>
> for unbiased news...
>
> www.slashdot.org is great for technical news.
>
> --
> Choose a job, choose a career, choose life. Choose Linux.
>
> patowic jurai net DoD# WildCard cabal# e
try Canada's national paper: "The Globe & Mail"
(a little on the conservative side but fairly objective)
then there's
"The Manchester Guardian" British paper with excellent foreign
affairs coverage.
M>
rollingrock
If you want liberal sources just read
the local rag or turn on the stupid tube.
patowic_i...@bouncespam.jurai.net wrote:
>
> Just before high-siding, Mark Mannix shrieked:
> : THANX!!!!!
>
> Hmmm...looks like a very conservative list of news sources,
> with the Drudge Report, and Fox News on there.
>
> I'd take it all as suspect, if I were you...
> --
> Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin
> really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me
> they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in
> excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what
> they say if they had.
> -- Linus Torvalds
tomd
rollingrock wrote:
> They ARE conservative news sources.
> If you want liberal sources just read
> the local rag or turn on the stupid tube.
>
> patowic_i...@bouncespam.jurai.net wrote:
> >
> > Just before high-siding, Mark Mannix shrieked:
> > : THANX!!!!!
> >
> > Hmmm...looks like a very conservative list of news sources,
> > with the Drudge Report, and Fox News on there.
> >
> > I'd take it all as suspect, if I were you...
> >
(snipped links to various news sites)
I always get a kick out of the way conservatives say the news media is liberal and
liberals say the news media is conservative.
I worked for a small-town paper for a couple years and I learned that, whatever you write,
people will call you up and complain that you are biased against whatever side they have
taken. Often you get this charge from people on both sides of any issue.
Yeah, yeah, I know. The majority of reporters are Democrats. I also know that the
majority of editors and publishers are Republicans. Makes for a kind of ad-hoc balance of
power.
Me, I like the Christian Science Monitor. Good background articles and a solid reputation
for balance and fairness. (that is, they are biased against EVERYBODY! :-)
Back it up with your favorite source of breaking news, and you're covered.
All the breaking news I usually need is on the Weather Channel.
-tommyD
tomd
rollingrock wrote:
> They ARE conservative news sources.
> If you want liberal sources just read
> the local rag or turn on the stupid tube.
>
(snip)
By the way, love your beer. Been my favorite since I've been legal -- over a quarter
century. (yes, I'm from Pa.)
Marilyn
>
> rollingrock wrote:
>
> > They ARE conservative news sources.
> > If you want liberal sources just read
> > the local rag or turn on the stupid tube.
> >
> > >
> > > Just before high-siding, Mark Mannix shrieked:
> > > : THANX!!!!!
> > >
> > > Hmmm...looks like a very conservative list of news sources,
> > > with the Drudge Report, and Fox News on there.
> > >
> > > I'd take it all as suspect, if I were you...
> > >
>
> (snipped links to various news sites)
>
> I always get a kick out of the way conservatives say the news media is liberal and
> liberals say the news media is conservative.
>
> I worked for a small-town paper for a couple years and I learned that, whatever you write,
> people will call you up and complain that you are biased against whatever side they have
> taken. Often you get this charge from people on both sides of any issue.
>
> Yeah, yeah, I know. The majority of reporters are Democrats. I also know that the
> majority of editors and publishers are Republicans. Makes for a kind of ad-hoc balance of
> power.
>
> Me, I like the Christian Science Monitor. Good background articles and a solid reputation
> for balance and fairness. (that is, they are biased against EVERYBODY! :-)
> Back it up with your favorite source of breaking news, and you're covered.
>
> All the breaking news I usually need is on the Weather Channel.
>
> -tommyD
You really hit on something there.
The weather is the news!
Probably more headlines (except for
monica/clinton) were about the weather
and its consequences
than anything elase in 1998.
Recently checking the weather channel here in Canada, there
was a story which had taken place a few blocks from my home.
Someone had been swept off Clover Point by a wave 2 meters
(little over a yard) high.
I decided not to ride my bike that day.
I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor.
Good writing and not much hyperbole. But not readily
available.
Marilyn
denis...@my-dejanews.com
> I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor.
> Good writing and not much hyperbole. But not readily
> available.
>
> Marilyn
Did you know about the Christian Science Monitor web-site? It's at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/
I used to look at it daily and enjoyed it. However, I find reading
"newspapers" on the internet to be frustrating and time-consuming compared to
being able to flip through a paper copy. Oh well. There are positive and
negative aspects of both, I suppose.
Denise B.
Jonathan W Hendry
> > I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor.
> > Good writing and not much hyperbole. But not readily
> > available.
> >
> > Marilyn
> Did you know about the Christian Science Monitor web-site? It's at:
> http://www.csmonitor.com/
> I used to look at it daily and enjoyed it. However, I find reading
> "newspapers" on the internet to be frustrating and time-consuming compared to
> being able to flip through a paper copy. Oh well. There are positive and
> negative aspects of both, I suppose.
I find the same to be true. It might be faster if you bring up the news site
in two windows instead of one. On MSWindows, you could use the window
arranging functions to make the two windows each take up half the
screen. That way you could browse through a news site through two
different paths at the same time. While one page is loading, browse
with the other window.
I often bring up several new sites at once, and look them over. In-depth
reading, such as I do with the Wall St. Journal, does seem to take longer.
- Jon
rollingrock
It has been years since I've read it but I do remember it as
exceptional. I'm there.
rollingrock
tomd wrote:
>
> By the way, love your beer. Been my favorite since I've been legal -- over a quarter
> century. (yes, I'm from Pa.)
I've been sipping 'rocks since my teen years in King of Prussia.
It was an inexpensive brew back then. Graduated Upper Merion '72.
It is the only mass produced beer I can stomach anymore.
I'm sure glad it went national. I'm sipping them in Hot Springs now.
rollingrock
patowic_i...@bouncespam.jurai.net wrote:
>
> Just before high-siding, rollingrock <o...@latrobe.org> shrieked:
Great opening!
Dear Sir,
I'm sooo far right everything looks left to me.
Not " Nazi " far right, please don't go there.
Right = the individual. Left = collectivist state.
It is part of my simplicity lifestyle.
I apologize if I insulted you or anybody else
with my snide lefty comments.
Glenn Snyder
> : They ARE conservative news sources.
> : If you want liberal sources just read
> : the local rag or turn on the stupid tube.
>
> ?? local rags are not liberal. If they were, they would have
> a 'labor' section, instead of a business section.
>
> TV News sells ratings, not an ideology. They will sell any
> viewpoint, if they can get advertisers.
>
> If the news media was really so liberal, then why do they point
> out the peccadillos of the supposedly liberal politicians and
> candidates (like Gary Hart, and Bill Clinton)? And why didn't
> they ride the Iran-Contra thing to the grave, like they did
> MonicaGate? Simple--Monica made ratings. Iranians getting
> weapons is dull.
> --
> patowic jurai net PH#3 1989 Honda VTR250
> DoD #WildCard BNASPAM #3 1971 Honda CL350
>
> ' Slander, lies, character assassination---these things are a threat to
> every single citizen everywhere in this country. When even one American
> ---who has done nothing wrong---is forced by fear to shut his mind and
> close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril. It is the job of all
> of us---of every American who loves his country and his freedom---to rise
> up and put a stop to this terrible business.'
>
> -D. D. Eisenhower speaking to the American Legion on McCarthyism.
McCarthy was right. Eisenhower was a commie.
( I just couldn't resist )
Paul Whitehead
<m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes
>t
>I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor.
>Good writing and not much hyperbole.
But what should pagans read?
Paul
Jonathan W Hendry
I haven't read their paper, but I used to catch their radio
news show, Monitor Radio. Good news, little or no noticeable
Christian slant. Pagans shouldn't have a problem with it - it's
world news, not proselytization or pontificating.
Marilyn
>
> In article <36C861...@britishcolumbia.ca>, Marilyn
> <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes
> >t
> >I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor.
> >Good writing and not much hyperbole.
>
> But what should pagans read?
>
I speak as a polytheist and I believe that the CSM is objective,
not necessaryily reflecting the minority (in the world) Christian view.
Also try "The Manchester Guardian" for foreign news, in print that
is.
M.
Paul Whitehead
<m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes
Actually, it's my daily paper, in print, and for some time it's been
called the Guardian. see http://www.guardian.co.uk
Paul
--
Paul Whitehead
Marilyn
>
> In article <36CB2E...@britishcolumbia.ca>, Marilyn
> <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes
> >Paul Whitehead wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <36C861...@britishcolumbia.ca>, Marilyn
> >> <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes
> >> >t
> >> >I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor.
> >> >Good writing and not much hyperbole.
> >>
> >> But what should pagans read?
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> >I speak as a polytheist and I believe that the CSM is objective,
> >not necessaryily reflecting the minority (in the world) Christian view.
> >Also try "The Manchester Guardian" for foreign news, in print that
> >is.
> >
> >M.
> The 'Manchester' Guardian!
>
> Actually, it's my daily paper, in print, and for some time it's been
> called the Guardian. see http://www.guardian.co.uk
>
> Paul
> --
> Paul Whitehead
Greetings to you in the UK.
Typical Brit correction.
At a local everyday store, we got "The Manchester Guardian"
once a week. Maybe this is the export copy.
Marilyn