CBC loses control of 'Hockey Night in Canada' to Rogers in blockbuster deal

[CDNBear]

Either respond to the Christmas Child thread or actually show the "proof" you have about the CBC. Which one did you do?

I responded to the other thread, and you didn't mention the CBC in your post, only the other thread.

This thread isn't about you your fragile ego, btw.

I posted where I learned about the CBC's bias. I can only lead you to knowledge, I can't force you to learn.

Ah yes, chocolate helps me when I'm not PMSing too.

Lol

I think ruffy needs a Mars bar, he seems bitchy today, lol.

 

[SLM]

I responded to the other thread, and you didn't mention the CBC in your post, only the other thread.

This thread isn't about you your fragile ego, btw.

I posted where I learned about the CBC's bias. I can only lead you to knowledge, I can't force you to learn.

I don't know Bear I'm beginning to think you're expected to present a full essay, replete with footnotes and adequate cross referencing.

Double spaced if you don't mind. lol.

But what do I know, I thought "CBC Watch" actually answered the question.

I think ruffy needs a Mars bar, he seems bitchy today, lol.

Chocolates for everyone!

 

[CDNBear]

I don't know Bear I'm beginning to think you're expected to present a full essay, replete with footnotes and adequate cross referencing.

Double spaced if you don't mind. lol.

Not going to happen. I don't waste my time on extremists that make accusations like "misappropriated funds", cry about fallacy and use them ad nauseum.

I've learned it's a waste of time to give them any real effort.

But what do I know, I thought "CBC Watch" actually answered the question.

In his defense, it's actually cbcwatch.ca in its reincarnated state. It used to be a .com.

My bad.

Chocolates for everyone!

He can have my share, he obviously needs it more than I.

 

[SLM]

He can have my share, he obviously needs it more than I.

Screw that, I'm taking it. I feel a bout of non-PMS coming on.

 

[BornRuff]

I don't know Bear I'm beginning to think you're expected to present a full essay, replete with footnotes and adequate cross referencing.

Double spaced if you don't mind. lol.

But what do I know, I thought "CBC Watch" actually answered the question.



Chocolates for everyone!

Haha, no the expectation is that if you claim to have "proof" of something, you actually show us what that proof is. A simple link to the proof is much nicer than pages of BS avoiding actually linking to anything.

In his defense, it's actually cbcwatch.ca in its reincarnated state. It used to be a .com.

Where exactly is their any info on there proving a bias?

 

[CDNBear]

Haha, no the expectation is that if you claim to have "proof" of something, you actually show us what that proof is.

I don't care to prove it, it's been my experience, that it's a waste of energy, and quite frankly you are very much like those that proved that to me.

All I'm willing to do is let you know where to find it, after that, you can do your own leg work. It's an excellent meter by which to measure someones capabilities, openness, and objectivity.

Would you like to know how you've faired?

A simple link to the proof is much nicer than pages of BS avoiding actually linking to anything.

Pages? Your use of dishonesty is stellar, not surprising, but stellar.

Maybe you should stick to the truth. You won't look so silly and you certainly wouldn't keep proving my opinion correct.

Where exactly is their any info on there proving a bias?

No idea, I haven't been there since the original site went down. I Googled them and found they were reincarnated as a .ca now.

 

[BornRuff]

I responded to the other thread, and you didn't mention the CBC in your post, only the other thread.

Well, it took you long enough, but I see you decided to write about a million lines of text, so that should be fun to get through. Here's hoping you actually reference some sort of proof anywhere in there.

I don't care to prove it, it's been my experience, that it's a waste of energy, and quite frankly you are very much like those that proved that to me.

All I'm willing to do is let you know where to find it, after that, you can do your own leg work. It's an excellent meter by which to measure someones capabilities, openness, and objectivity.

Would you like to know how you've faired?

Pages? Your use of dishonesty is stellar, not surprising, but stellar.

Maybe you should stick to the truth. You won't look so silly and you certainly wouldn't keep proving my opinion correct.

No idea, I haven't been there since the original site went down. I Googled them and found they were reincarnated as a .ca now.

Lol, you tell me you told me where to find it, then admit that you don't even know how to find it. The info isn't there on the site.

If someone claims to have proof of something, then gives the name of an internet forum as the proof(that actually has 0 information on it), how does that fair for their "capabilities, openness, and objectivity".

If it is so obvious, why can't you even think of one example yourself?

 

[MHz]

In real terms what does it mean, you have to get up and change the channels?
If I was a fan of hockey and big business I would go with NHL online, $150 later I have access to almost all the games and I get to choose camera angels I think so be sure to have a fat broadband connection, the hockey night is 7 times a week if that is desirable. (my Granson has one so it must have some attractive items in it above that)

 

[CDNBear]

Lol, you tell me you told me where to find it, then admit that you don't even know how to find it.

Please stop lying, it only makes you look foolish. I said I don't where to find it at their new site, I didn't say I didn't know how.

The info isn't there on the site.

Then why are you crying at me?

If someone claims to have proof of something, then gives the name of an internet forum as the proof(that actually has 0 information on it), how does that fair for their "capabilities, openness, and objectivity".

I said "proven bias". As in it was proven to me.

Why am I not surprised I had to explain that.

If it is so obvious, why can't you even think of one example yourself?

I can think of a couple, but you didn't ask me for an example.

 

[BornRuff]

Please stop lying, it only makes you look foolish. I said I don't where to find it at their new site, I didn't say I didn't know how.

If you do know how, show me.

Then why are you crying at me?

I said "proven bias". As in it was proven to me.

Why am I not surprised I had to explain that.

Lol, "I know it is true but I can't tell you why" is usually not what people mean when they say something is "proven"

I can think of a couple, but you didn't ask me for an example.

If not examples of their bias, what on earth did you think would constitute "proof"?

 

[CDNBear]

If you do know how, show me.

LOL.

Lol, "I know it is true but I can't tell you why" is usually not what people mean when they say something is "proven"

Stop making things up, you just make yourself look weak and silly.

If not examples of their bias, what on earth did you think would constitute "proof"?

Look, you can prattle on all you want, you didn't ask, and that's that.

 

[BornRuff]

LOL.

Stop making things up, you just make yourself look weak and silly.

Look, you can prattle on all you want, you didn't ask, and that's that.

Haha, remember what I said about pages of BS avoiding actually providing proof?

Ok Bear, can you please provide me with some examples.

 

[CDNBear]

Ok Bear, can you please provide me with some examples.

Sure. Was that so hard?

There was the apology they had to give over the heil Harper graphic and of course there's the cutsie messed up editing that caused this apology...

CBC offers "regret" over Lawand piece - YouTube

Haha, remember what I said about pages of BS avoiding actually providing proof?

I remember your lie.

 

[BornRuff]

Sure. Was that so hard?

There was the apology they had to give over the heil Harper graphic and of course there's the cutsie messed up editing that caused this apology...

CBC offers "regret" over Lawand piece - YouTube

I remember your lie.

Every news outlet issues apologies from time to time. I can't seem to find the either of the actual footage for these two incidents, so it is hard to really judge, but they both seem to be pretty minor issues with editing, not actually the editorial integrity of the network. The Harper Heil thing apparently wasn't even actually the word "heil", but ya, if you do have any image of that, it would be cool to see.

 

[CDNBear]

LOL, pretty much what I expected.

 

[BornRuff]

LOL, pretty much what I expected.

Some awkward edits are not exactly proof of an institutional bias.

 

[CDNBear]

Some awkward edits are not exactly proof of an institutional bias.

You asked for examples.

Those were examples.

There's all sorts of intel out there if you want to take a look at the other side of your opinion. I'll understand if you don't actually examine any of it.

 

[BornRuff]

You asked for examples.

Those were examples.

There's all sorts of intel out there if you want to take a look at the other side of your opinion. I'll understand if you don't actually examine any of it.

You love to say stuff like this but your track record is pretty poor.

 

[CDNBear]

You love to say stuff like this but your track record is pretty poor.

I told you I'd understand, and I do.