Dianne Reuby wrote:
> When I've got too depressed with "real" news, I read the headlines from
> Sky's "Offbeat" section. Today I've been uplifted to see that:
> * an 18-year old student swallowed his door key to stop his
> friends taking him home when they thought he'd drunk enough -
On 06/02/2008, Seif Attar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kris Douglas wrote:
> |>> Tom Bamford wrote:
> |>>> [snip]
> |>>>
> |>>> I guess everyone has their viewing preference; the same 15 minutes of
> |>>> lukewarm headlines over and over again is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Douglas wrote:
|>> Tom Bamford wrote:
|>>> [snip]
|>>>
|>>> I guess everyone has their viewing preference; the same 15 minutes of
|>>> lukewarm headlines over and over again is not for me, nor any
|>>> US-b[i]ased station.
|
| I know this is tota
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:04:37PM +, Kris Douglas wrote:
>
> I know this is totally off topic, but I was wondering why there are
> "[]" around the 'i' on Tom Bamford's post: "US-b[i]ased"?
It makes the i optional so that it could be US-based and US-biased.
__
When I've got too depressed with "real" news, I read the headlines from
Sky's "Offbeat" section. Today I've been uplifted to see that:
* an 18-year old student swallowed his door key to stop his
friends taking him home when they thought he'd drunk enough - he
had to let nature
On 06/02/2008, Tom Bamford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Anderson wrote:
> > Tom Bamford wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I guess everyone has their viewing preference; the same 15 minutes of
> >> lukewarm headlines over and over again is not for me, nor any
> >> US-b[i]ased station.
> >
> > Rol
William Anderson wrote:
> Tom Bamford wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> I guess everyone has their viewing preference; the same 15 minutes of
>> lukewarm headlines over and over again is not for me, nor any
>> US-b[i]ased station.
>
> Rolling news channels aren't designed to be watched for extended periods
Tom Bamford wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I guess everyone has their viewing preference; the same 15 minutes of
> lukewarm headlines over and over again is not for me, nor any
> US-b[i]ased station.
Rolling news channels aren't designed to be watched for extended periods
of time, unless something "big"
Alan Pope wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:31:42PM +, Tom Bamford wrote:
>> Forgot CNN, which is also pretty weak on content.
>>
>
> Reminds me of an American guy I worked with last year.
>
> Him: You know, they need adverts on the BBC!
> Me: Why!?
> Him: Because I gotta take a pee sometim
