Whos Paul Johnson?

[Arm]

I was looking around at Al-Queda In North Americas web page and after their Koran-thumping anti-american text they showed grainy pictures of a dead guy with something going through his head and blood everywhere.

The image title was pauljohnson. I was wondering who that is? Someone Al-Queda killed or who?

[tesco]

Originally posted by Arm@21 June 2004 - 15:29
I was looking around at Al-Queda In North Americas web page and after their Koran-thumping anti-american text they showed grainy pictures of a dead guy with something going through his head and blood everywhere.

The image title was pauljohnson. I was wondering who that is? Someone Al-Queda killed or who?
link?

edit: Here is some info on that murder...(CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/)

[Arm]

The page is on Freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net). Ill mirror the whole page. It's quite small and possibly a fake site. You never know with Freenet.(Since people are crybaby pussies I removed the text.)Well thats the whole site. :01:

Edited to remove pictures.

[j2k4]

arm-

I believe the urge you satisfied or the itch you scratched by posting as you did indicates a flaw in your psyche, such as might have occurred on an occasion when you were beaten within an inch of your life for an offense you no doubt regarded as trivial.

Get that looked at, won't you?

[Donnie Darko]

Dont forget nick berg.

[Mr. Blunt]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko@21 June 2004 - 17:55
Dont forget nick berg.
Who?

[GepperRankins]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko@22 June 2004 - 01:55
Dont forget nick berg.
or the many thousands of evil towelheads that were killed by our heroic americans

[vidcc]

Arm

There is absolutely no need to post pictures of this event directly.
It serves no purpose and if anyone felt the need to see them they could have visited the site themselves rather than having the pictures thrust upon them.

I am Anti censorship but pro responsibility.... there is a time and place and this is not the place.

[Donnie Darko]

Originally posted by GepperRankins+22 June 2004 - 02:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GepperRankins @ 22 June 2004 - 02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Donnie Darko@22 June 2004 - 01:55
Dont forget nick berg.
or the many thousands of evil towelheads that were killed by our heroic americans [/b][/quote]
Yeah them too.

[sparsely]

and nevar forget John Smith....

:rolleyes:

[Arm]

Hey stop bitching at me. I didn&#39;t know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Arm@22 June 2004 - 05:32
Hey stop bitching at me. I didn&#39;t know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake. ;)
Oh, you did that in total innocence? <_<

Then from now on we can assume naivete every time you make a contrary comment, correct?

That should be fun; I expect we won&#39;t have long to wait. ;)

[GepperRankins]

anyonee know these al queada websites? i reckon theyd be interesting to read

[manker]

Originally posted by GepperRankins@22 June 2004 - 21:48
anyonee know these al queada websites? i reckon theyd be interesting to read
not an al qaeda website but aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage) gives the world news from an eastern, rather than a western, point of view.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Arm@22 June 2004 - 03:32
Hey stop bitching at me. I didn&#39;t know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake. ;)
You find pictures of decapitation "amusing"?
What does it matter real or fake, there was no purpose served in posting such pictures.

[J'Pol]

Maybe we should have a Poll about whether this prick should post pictures of decapitations.

No wait, sorry don&#39;t want to offend anyone by having a Poll about what they should post. Just use the report button if you think something is out of order and let the Mods deal with it.

Can&#39;t go trying people in public, without them having a say. That would be unfair.

[Canti]

Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Canti@22 June 2004 - 15:58
Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.
This isn&#39;t about forcing morals upon anyone. The statement has been made that I /we are anti censorship but pro responsibility.
Had he posted a link to the pictures that would be fine, anyone that wished to view the pictures could have chosen to do so, but instead he decided to post the pictures in full view which meant that the reader had no choice. There is no hypocrisy involved, just a wish for responsibility in method.
This forum has members from many backgrounds, cultures and ages and all should be respected.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@22 June 2004 - 19:24
This isn&#39;t about forcing morals upon anyone. The statement has been made that I /we are anti censorship but pro responsibility.
Had he posted a link to the pictures that would be fine, anyone that wished to view the pictures could have chosen to do so, but instead he decided to post the pictures in full view which meant that the reader had no choice. There is no hypocrisy involved, just a wish for responsibility in method.
This forum has members from many backgrounds, cultures and ages and all should be respected.
Oh no I think I might actually agree with you on something :ph34r:

Just this one time though :P

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Canti@22 June 2004 - 23:58
Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.
A link, with a description and warning would have sufficed.

It was him who took people choice and freedom to decide away, not the reverse.

That way his freedom of expression would have been conserved, as would everyone else&#39;s freedom not to look at disturbing images.

The way he did it left him as the only person able to make a choice.

[sampson]

Originally posted by Canti@22 June 2004 - 16:58
Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.
Hey, I&#39;m all for free speech etc. but there&#39;s something called respect. Or even more specific in this case, respect for the dead. Put yourself in his families shoes where the husband/father/brother/son of someone is having their body displayed on the net.

How would you feel if say your mother or spouse was in a gruesome car accident and rotten.com decided to spred it all over the net. You&#39;d probably be in an uproar, at least I hope so.



Don&#39;t look at the Communist News Network (http://www.cnn.com) for your news either. More accurate and sensible coverage at/on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com)

[Canti]

Ahh.. Hence the edit. I missed that part, didn&#39;t realize there were images there originally.

[Arm]

Man you people are a bunch of stuckup self-righteous assholes. <_< Posting some grainy pictures that were resized. It&#39;s hard to see anything clearly at full view and resized is just a blur. I was hoping someone saw the pictures somewhere and could tell me some story of who the fuck the guy is. I guess thats too hard for you. :frusty:

And no morons, I dont find decapitation amusing. I found the sites text funny and the picture made me wonder who Paul Johnson was.


Originally posted by sampson@22 June 2004 - 16:58

Don&#39;t look at the Communist News Network (http://www.cnn.com) for your news.&nbsp; More accurate and sensible coverage at/on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com)
You sir, are an idiot. :lol: Fox News is worse then CNN. If you want news that actually tries to report news then the BBC is good for mainstream viewers.

[Canti]

Originally posted by Arm+23 June 2004 - 12:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Arm @ 23 June 2004 - 12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Man you people are a bunch of stuckup self-righteous assholes. <_< Posting some grainy pictures that were resized. It&#39;s hard to see anything clearly at full view and resized is just a blur. I was hoping someone saw the pictures somewhere and could tell me some story of who the fuck the guy is. I guess thats too hard for you. :frusty:

And no morons, I dont find decapitation amusing. I found the sites text funny and the picture made me wonder who Paul Johnson was.

<!--QuoteBegin-Canti@22 June 2004 - 16:58

Don&#39;t look at the Communist News Network (http://www.cnn.com) for your news. More accurate and sensible coverage at/on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com)
You sir, are an idiot. :lol: Fox News is worse then CNN. If you want news that actually tries to report news then the BBC is good for mainstream viewers. [/b][/quote]
What the fuck are you quoting me for over that news shit?
I never said a goddamn thing about it.

[sampson]

If you want news that actually tries to report news then the BBC is good for mainstream viewers.

http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gif

OMG Stop it&#33;&#33;&#33; You&#39;re killing me&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;































http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gifhttp://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/laughing1.gif

[sampson]

The once Dominant CNN is terrible. Bottom line: althoughI like MSNBC for Amy Robach and Natalie Morales and maybe Dan Abrams. FOX News is much better and fair and balanced&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Voetsek]

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt+22 June 2004 - 02:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr. Blunt @ 22 June 2004 - 02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Donnie Darko@21 June 2004 - 17:55
Dont forget nick berg.
Who? [/b][/quote]
so who will be next and next and next till some new horror starts adults male next woman? kids?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Canti+23 June 2004 - 12:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Canti @ 23 June 2004 - 12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Arm@23 June 2004 - 12:36
Man you people are a bunch of stuckup self-righteous assholes. <_< Posting some grainy pictures that were resized. It&#39;s hard to see anything clearly at full view and resized is just a blur. I was hoping someone saw the pictures somewhere and could tell me some story of who the fuck the guy is. I guess thats too hard for you. :frusty:

And no morons, I dont find decapitation amusing. I found the sites text funny and the picture made me wonder who Paul Johnson was.

<!--QuoteBegin-Canti@22 June 2004 - 16:58

Don&#39;t look at the Communist News Network (http://www.cnn.com) for your news. More accurate and sensible coverage at/on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com)
You sir, are an idiot. :lol: Fox News is worse then CNN. If you want news that actually tries to report news then the BBC is good for mainstream viewers.
What the fuck are you quoting me for over that news shit?
I never said a goddamn thing about it. [/b][/quote]
Fight&#33; Fight&#33;

:lol:

Right; go play in the traffic, you two-I&#39;ll drive. ;)

[GepperRankins]

bbc is teh bestest :01:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by GepperRankins@23 June 2004 - 15:34
bbc is teh bestest :01:
There&#39;s certainly no call for that kind of talk. ;)

[GepperRankins]

i believe the british broadcasting corporaton&#39;s service is of un-rivalled exceptional quality



:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by GepperRankins@23 June 2004 - 15:49
i believe the british broadcasting corporaton&#39;s service is of un-rivalled exceptional quality



:rolleyes:
Any media outlet worth a tinker&#39;s damn wouldn&#39;t need defending or inflating; even, and especially, Auntie Beeb.

Sorry.

BTW: I watch FOXNEWS, and willingly concede that it sucks, but it does present the Conservative viewpoint as no other news channel does.

It is also wracked with babes. ;)

[manker]

Originally posted by j2k4+23 June 2004 - 21:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 23 June 2004 - 21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-GepperRankins@23 June 2004 - 15:49
i believe the british broadcasting corporaton&#39;s service is of un-rivalled exceptional quality



:rolleyes:
Any media outlet worth a tinker&#39;s damn wouldn&#39;t need defending or inflating; even, and especially, Auntie Beeb.

Sorry.

BTW: I watch FOXNEWS, and willingly concede that it sucks, but it does present the Conservative viewpoint as no other news channel does.

It is also wracked with babes. ;) [/b][/quote]
I feel the BBC needed defending like no other media outlet before or since during the hutton enquiry. and has since needed a fair bit of inflating.

surely you&#39;re not saying the BBC isn&#39;t worth a tinker&#39;s damn? :o

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by j2k4@23 June 2004 - 16:05
It is also wracked with babes. ;)
Damn straight.

J2 ever see Laurie Dhue? She does the news in-between breaks.


:wub: :wub: :wub:

[GepperRankins]

i think the fact that the bbc dare question the government ranks it above cnn and fox

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@23 June 2004 - 14:05
It is also wracked with babes. ;)
good right wing tottie like this? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




Image Resized
[img]http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/sab.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/sab.jpg')

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+23 June 2004 - 16:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 23 June 2004 - 16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@23 June 2004 - 16:05
It is also wracked with babes. ;)
Damn straight.

J2 ever see Laurie Dhue? She does the news in-between breaks.


:wub: :wub: :wub: [/b][/quote]
I like&#39; em all, even chubby Rita.

My faves are Jane Skinner, Uma Pemmaraju, Patti-Ann Brown, Heather Nauert, and Juliet Huddy.

That&#39;s a lot of faves, isn&#39;t it. :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by manker@23 June 2004 - 16:26

I feel the BBC needed defending like no other media outlet before or since during the hutton enquiry. and has since needed a fair bit of inflating.

surely you&#39;re not saying the BBC isn&#39;t worth a tinker&#39;s damn? :o
After the Hutton inquiry, the Beeb needed rescusitation, true, but as to bias?

Let&#39;s be honest:

The BBC has succumbed, as has every other media outlet on the planet; bias is strictly a matter of course these days.

[GepperRankins]

Originally posted by j2k4+24 June 2004 - 02:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 24 June 2004 - 02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@23 June 2004 - 16:26

I feel the BBC needed defending like no other media outlet before or since during the hutton enquiry. and has since needed a fair bit of inflating.

surely you&#39;re not saying the BBC isn&#39;t worth a tinker&#39;s damn?&nbsp; :o
After the Hutton inquiry, the Beeb needed rescusitation, true, but as to bias?

Let&#39;s be honest:

The BBC has succumbed, as has every other media outlet on the planet; bias is strictly a matter of course these days. [/b][/quote]
biased towards whom?

[missc]

Originally posted by Arm@21 June 2004 - 20:29
I was looking around at Al-Queda In North Americas web page and after their Koran-thumping anti-american text they showed grainy pictures of a dead guy with something going through his head and blood everywhere.

The image title was pauljohnson. I was wondering who that is? Someone Al-Queda killed or who?
rude, rude rude rude, geez read the papers sometime.

[Voetsek]

soon all this will be history and no one will care

[manker]

Originally posted by j2k4+24 June 2004 - 02:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 24 June 2004 - 02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@23 June 2004 - 16:26

I feel the BBC needed defending like no other media outlet before or since during the hutton enquiry. and has since needed a fair bit of inflating.

surely you&#39;re not saying the BBC isn&#39;t worth a tinker&#39;s damn?&nbsp; :o
After the Hutton inquiry, the Beeb needed rescusitation, true, but as to bias?

Let&#39;s be honest:

The BBC has succumbed, as has every other media outlet on the planet; bias is strictly a matter of course these days. [/b][/quote]
What a cynical outlook you have J2, certainly in normal circumstances media outlets are biased to some extent due to pressure from their government, advertisers or their parent company.

Clearly the BBC is different. It most certainly is not biased toward it&#39;s government as the Hutton Enquiry proved, It has no advertisers to pander toward and no parent company. It merely has an obligation to the licence fee payers to operate in an unbiased manner and it has always strived to that end.

Even in this increasingly capitalist environment Auntie Beeb still has no reason to tend toward bias.

My original query pertained to whether you did indeed believe that the BBC wasn&#39;t worth a tinker&#39;s damn. Maybe you were being flippant in that respect but to group our beloved BBC with "every other media outlet" with regard to bias smacks slightly of transatlantic covetousness, old chap.

[j2k4]

Events often serve to point up such things as biases, Manker, and we have certainly had our share of events recently, as I&#39;m sure you&#39;d agree.

What you regard as my cynicism is nothing more than honest and objective surmise.

You make the common mistake of assuming bias does not exist in the absence of some external pressure.

Media bias is just that:

Media bias.

It comes from within; the misguided mores of the anointed, elitist journalists, and their compulsion to see themselves as the arbiters of right and wrong, moral and immoral.

The BBC is not exceptional in this.

BTW-Your Hutton Report and mine don&#39;t match, apparently.


EDIT: I will retract any scrap of intent you detected regarding the Beeb&#39;s worthiness; it has as much credibility as any other news source, but while the BBC revels in your esteem, remind yourself that, as the BBC is to you, Al Jazeera is to the Arab world; facts are (as they say) facts.

[j2k4]

Mods-

Perhaps this should be in WN&E?