Thread: Is News bad for you? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025270
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Here is an article by someone who thinks it is.

They have given up watching and reading News for four years now.

quote:
I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
My dad realised this and didn't listen to or watch the news for 20 years. He never made a fuss about it, just quietly gave it up.

If he occasionally saw it (at our house for example) he'd say "Yep, just the same as the last time I saw it", which could have been years.

I think they may both be right.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
The bias of reporting irritates me, as does the sensationalism, and so I have avoided newspapers for a long time. I rely on the BBC for news, while watching with critical eyes and overbalancing the bad news with the joy of good relationships, creativity and counting blessings.

Avoiding the news altogether means that we no longer keep up with what's happening, which imo is a bad thing individually and socially.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
They say "ignorance is bliss", don't they?
 
Posted by Kater Murr (# 17479) on :
 
I think even if it can be frustrating on a certain point it's nevertheless important to read newspapers or watch the news. In my opinion humans have to interfere socially, for compassion’s sake, to raise voice for the poor, against war etc., and therefore it's important to know, what's going on out there. But that's only my point of view. (And I have to admit that shamefully I could do more myself in that direction)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Precious little of what the media presents to us is actually 'news' of a meaningful kind.

I happened to be discussing this with my mother last night, for reasons that escape me. There are more and more hours of television coverage to fill and web pages to keep refreshing. There isn't nearly enough real material to fill it. If there is a day where nothing much of real interest or impact happened, there still has to be a headline, and the allotted half hour has to be filled - and that's when there's a mere half hour news bulletin on a television station, a rare thing. So many stations have an hour of news, and then 'current affairs' shows. And then you have 24 hour news stations that desperately repeat every pointless detail, including the detail that there are no details yet.

It's not about informing you in most cases either. It's about drawing you in. Ratings. Something with footage or photographs becomes a story. A couple of nights ago the 'breaking news' was about a house fire. Which had "threatened" other nearby houses, and which was near a railway line, leading to a temporary closure of the line... and which had some nice big flames they filmed from a helicopter...

...and which was OUT by the time the story was airing. The only person this 'news' had any real relevance to was the poor bloke whose house had burnt down.

I do think there's useful news, and that the article's suggestion that you won't get 1 useful piece each year is something of an exaggeration. But most of the useful stuff isn't to be found in the relentless 24-hour turnaround forms of news. It's far more likely to be found in pieces that are worked on much longer, by proper journalists who spend time piecing it together.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Every time I consider giving up reading the news, I think of the Ostrich Song by Flanders and Swann...

I don't read newspapers though; I get most of my news from the BBC website nowadays and only read the headlines of most stories. And I avoid Twitter and any other sources that are basically malicious gossip dressed up as news, as much as possible.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
Up to a point. I think it is important to keep up with what is going on in the world, but "news" these days seems to be about stuff no one really needs to know.

I have not regularly watched network tv news for years now. I hear the news o NPR during my brief early am car ride to the train station on those days I go in to the office. I do also check the headlines online, and follow up on some, but not all stories. Then there are certain issues which impact me more directly. Because of my location and job, those issues are often also national news, such as the sequester.

I hane no idea who the Kardashians are, and couldn't pick one out of a lineup. Stuff like that never interested me. I could give more examples, but I think you get the point.

A year ago I "cut the cord" and now get tv only via the Internet and my Roku box. That means I am basically advertisement free. I realized what a blessing that was during the last election...when I was getting my car worked on, and had to sit in a waiting room with a tv.

I don't mis it at all (particularly since, unlike the OPs grandfather, I do keep up with what I consider to be the important studd, at least enough to know the basics.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
A one time neighbour was on her own and had mobility problems. After a long life well lived telly was her comfort, but she was getting very low and having nightmares. The cause was finally located in her daily intake of international news. So heavy a burden and she could do nothing about anything.

After some time thinking, my lovely neighbour managed to turn ?down/?off the telly for half an hour every evening and instead knitted.

Somewhere in Africa is a hospital that sent quite specific requests for her knitting. My neighbour's chronicly low mood lifted and her arthritis was never bad enough to stop half an hour's of knitting a day.

For my neighbour...news was bad for her.

[ 13. April 2013, 13:43: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
What a good article. I had trouble reading it though because I kept skimming. That part of the article is something I've noticed recently. I can still get in bed with a book and sink into it properly, but I am unable to read books online because all these years of skimming news articles and message board threads has made me an involuntary skimmer when facing a computer.

Another thing that rang true is the stress factor. Yesterday morning I read about a terrible accident involving a toddler in Florida. I worried about her and her family all day. My concern for them did them no good at all, while it ruined my day. The accident might serve as a warning to some parent and save a life but, then again, there was nothing there most people don't already know.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
IMHO, the article makes a good point, but overstates, I think. Completely abstaining from all news sources at all times seems to me childish and self-centered. I suspect if followed, it would lead to self-absorbed persons who know nothing nor care nothing for the rest of the world. If you choose that path, please tell me you don't vote.

otoh, using discernment in which news you consume, how much, in what forum, and when, is wise, as is having seasons of life when you abstain from news for the same sorts of reasons we enter into other sorts of disciplines of abstinence.

I've stopped listening to (American) Sunday morning news shows. They tend to feature angry politicians saying angry things that add nothing to my own spiritual growth/ Sabbath rest. I would probably be wise to avoid facebook political rants, as they are so often inaccurate and seem to bring more heat than light. YMMV

Probably the best personal example that supports the author's thesis is my experience was when my mom became disabled and was house-bound. She was also deaf, and we initially had some difficulty setting up her hearing-assisted TV in a way that she could change channels easily (complicated explanation irrelevant). She went through a period of time where she had the channel set to Fox News* and watched only that 24/7 for several weeks. I saw her literally descend into a hellish nightmare of paranoia in a fairly short period of time. Really awful to watch. I got my IT hubby in to fix the problem with the TV, which entailed choosing intentionally which channels to include in the roster-- Fox didn't make the cut. Within a few days of being able to choose from a varied diet of channels-- most of them news (she was always very interested in global affairs) but of a more varied nature-- her affect and emotional health took a complete 180.

*but then again, perhaps discussing Fox on a thread about news shows is off-topic. My apologies.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
There's some truth in that article.

I prefer to read articles which have some perspective on a news story (such as is found in the Sunday papers and in 'The Week' magazine) rather than keeping up to day with drip-fed details every day.

For daily news, i tend only to follow stories and issues which particularly concern me, about which i am trying to maintain a level of specialist expertise.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
Whilst avoiding taking the thread off-topic by discussing whether the BBC counts as a proper adn reputable 'news' broadcaster these days in the same way cliffdweller disgards Fox news, the comment on 24 hour rolling news channels sparked something in my mind. Having spent a couple fo days in the past being bed bound and having little to watch during the day on TV the news would go on with the same broadcasts each and every time I popped the news on.

Has news, in its race to have the catchiest, most recent news, forgone the requirement to actually delve deeply behind the story properly, considering every angle and presenting in-depth news? Or is that just me? Whilst considering the news media in print, television and internet forms as important, the importance must be on us all to read beyond our natural prejudices, ie, not just reading the Times, but reading alternatives as well, to gain as many sides of the point as possible and therefore to come to a rational conclusion of our own rather than solely relying on one media outlet which will in the end colour our entire world view of everything...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
ISTM, the article is, in part, guilty of what it accuses the news of being.
Skipping news on the telly, not a bad thing. Skipping the news entire? Not so good. Yes, I agree that a journalistic approach to events is better, but not everything is prepared this way.
Better to find as balanced a source as you can and filter out the fluff yourself.
 
Posted by Crazy Cat Lady (# 17616) on :
 
I could probably do without the News - but I have to watch the Weather!

It's a 'must' - though i can't think of any pressing reason why I should need to watch it, other than it making a good conversation opener.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I have found even our best news available here (CBC) vapid and annoying in presentation, so a few years ago I switched to watching the news in French. While the presenters are perhaps just as annoying, I am able to overlook that as I try to figure out their grammar and track pronunciation. The slant and selection of items is slightly different, but the overall experience has been rewarding.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I used to be a TV news avid , having had the tradition handed on from our dad who religously ended the day with ITN's news at ten , ( remember hearing the bell chime as a child trying to get to sleep).
So until living with my partner I usually watched the BBC news at 9.00 . She doesn't watch news, (and doesn't vote BTW), and has partially weaned me on to a TV news-free diet . To be honest I do feel better for it.

I still listen to radio news at work but the propaganda ahead of the Iraq invasion ,( 45 min WMD thing), really did put me off the reliability of news in a big way.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
If they have given up the news, are they still voting?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I have to start with the obvious question: if Rolf Dobelli is so convinced that the news is harmful, why publish it in a newspaper?

Depending on what one does and ones aspirations it might be possible to avoid the news altogether but by and large I agree with cliffdweller: use discernment and concentrate of worrying about the things that affect one directly and those one can influence, even if only by prayer.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I can usually get the gist of the news from Radio news bulletins (most are 3 or 4 minutes long, on the hour). Any that seem particularly interesting, I can follow up later online. The BBC news website is interesting for headlines (again I only follow up those most interesting) and for the weather report (which is usually pretty accurate, so therefore helpful). I really don't miss national newspapers at all.

However, one thing I must never miss is the weekly local paper. How else would I know about all the concerts and other events going on in the area? News is less important than being a forum for local activities.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It depends where it comes from. I'm a long time shortwave radio listener and often an internet radio listener. There are fine, fine news shows on BBC, Radio Australia, Channel Africa (South Africa), Al Jazeera (seems to employ downsized BBCers), Radio Havana Cuba.

Such information broadens the mind. I suspect news haters have consumed a diet of one sort or another and need to get some other food.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can usually get the gist of the news from Radio news bulletins (most are 3 or 4 minutes long, on the hour). Any that seem particularly interesting, I can follow up later online. The BBC news website is interesting for headlines (again I only follow up those most interesting)
Yes. It's the TV news, imo, which is mind numbing and addictive. I have avoided it completely for the last three days and already feel better for it.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Not to sure that about this idea of -- if you don't watch the news then you're not fit to vote . That sounds a little dictatorial to me .
If this is the News' primary function , IE a tool for manipulating the mob into voting a certain way , then that is one good reason to either avoid it or, in the very least, view it with suspicion.

Another function of the News is voyeurism, providing meat for us the 'rubber-neckers' . Can't put my hand up and say I'm immune to that [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I don't quite see the importance of watching or reading the news regarding voting either. If news awareness told us how best to vote, Americans wouldn't be so consistently split down the middle. It's just another point in favor of the article's Warren Buffett quote: "What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact."

I used to get almost all of my news from a weekly news magazine. At least that way I avoided most of the day to day lurid stories and what I did read had a little bit of depth and analysis to it.

Then I went to another extreme, buying several newspapers a day, and now, of course, I can find myself reading internet news and the comments that run along with it for hours.

OTOH, my husband has never bought a newspaper or even watched the nightly news in his life but he seems to be about as informed as I am? I just asked him about this and he said he reads those headlines that pop up on our e-mail site.

The article asks us if reading the news has directly impacted us in the past year. My answer is no.
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
Has any shipmate noticed the age gap in what is considered news? The Yahoo site where my email starts has a "Trending Now" list of what is going on in the social media. Hardly ever is there any thing that reflects the major news stories;
Thatcher's death being an exception. Mostly it shows that the interest is is in entertainment "news".

So maybe old news is no news.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
The neighbour voted
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
I think I'd rather see someone vote who doesn't follow any news at all, than someone who just watched very biased news from one source (such as Faux... but same if it's a very liberal biased source).

I do think you have to be at least somewhat familiar with the major issues of the day (however you obtain that knowledge) in order to be an informed voter. that doesn't have to be watching any news show regularly, or reading papers. There are many ways to get the most important information.

I think it's a shame when someone completely blocks off information.. and as far a I'm concerned obtaining information from just one, biased source blocks off information, making you less informed.

Few people truly live in an information vacuum, though. the news it thrown at us all the time from many directions, even if you dont' seek it out. I think you have to try really hard these days to completely keep yourself "news free".

I mean, I really don't know who the Kardashians are... but I've certainly heard their names enough to have some idea of their characteristics. even though I have never, ever saught out that information, or choose to watch news shows which would feature that sort of information.

Oh... and I watch John Steward/Colber report. That's usually enough for me to know what the major issues are, even if I may not have a good, in depth understanding of those issues. I can always look up more if I want.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't quite see the importance of watching or reading the news regarding voting either. If news awareness told us how best to vote, Americans wouldn't be so consistently split down the middle.

...OTOH, my husband has never bought a newspaper or even watched the nightly news in his life but he seems to be about as informed as I am? I just asked him about this and he said he reads those headlines that pop up on our e-mail site.
How can you be "informed" w/o engaging news in some forum? There may be some forums you rightly eschew (e.g. too superficial or biased) in favor of others (more in-depth or objective), but if you are truly eschewing ALL forms of news you can't possible be "more informed" or informed at all. What in the world would you use as a criteria to vote? The way someone's name sounds? What they're saying about the candidate around the water cooler at work?

the one exception would be if sufficient data is given through public means. Here in California we are notoriously governed thru propositions, rather than our apparently superfluous elected officials. This has ALL sorts of problems but that's another issue. But we do get a very useful voter guide that spells out the exact text of the amendment, shows precisely how it would alter the state constitution, includes statements from leading opponents and proponents, and an assessment of its fiscal impact. It is useful enough (and ads are misleading enough) that I do intentionally ignore all the pre-voting advertising and propaganda, and instead devote a day or two to carefully reading the voter's guide.

If we had something similar for candidates, I might feel better about voting w/o reading any news, but alas we do not, and it's hard to imagine how you could provide anything as useful or detailed when it comes to a person.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
There are lots of people, including lots of ship posters, who are certain to vote for the same party in the next election as they did in the last election, whatever might happen to be news between now and then. Their votes are based on general principles rather than day to day events.

If people who are well informed but don't ever change their vote because of it are entitled to vote, then I don't see why people who are not well informed shouldn't vote too.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There are lots of people, including lots of ship posters, who are certain to vote for the same party in the next election as they did in the last election, whatever might happen to be news between now and then. Their votes are based on general principles rather than day to day events.

If people who are well informed but don't ever change their vote because of it are entitled to vote, then I don't see why people who are not well informed shouldn't vote too.
Just because some voters never change the party for whom they vote isn't necessarily due to being less well-informed. As moonlitdoor notes, it may be due to general principles rather than day to day events. I keep up with the news from a variety of sources (although this thread is making me have second thoughts about consuming so much news) and unfortunately i have felt that i have had to vote for the same party for years because i have no other choice. There's a choice of only 2 parties where i live and the other party's stands in every way go against my principles. The very very occasional 3rd party candidates have not been realistic alternatives nor any better in any case IMHO.
 
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :
 
Having just read the article one could apply the main points to other things like reading novels, watching movies, internet forums (ahem) etc.

This for example

quote:
News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: "What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact."
is true of any medium by which we recieve information. If we're honest most of us do this to some extent. Will we stop doing it if we decide not to watch the news? I doubt it.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is an article by someone who thinks it is.

They have given up watching and reading News for four years now.

quote:
I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
My dad realised this and didn't listen to or watch the news for 20 years. He never made a fuss about it, just quietly gave it up.

If he occasionally saw it (at our house for example) he'd say "Yep, just the same as the last time I saw it", which could have been years.

I think they may both be right.
Yep, I agree. When I was but a wee lad a friend of the family was determined to have heart trouble by his doctor. One of the things the doctor told him to do is to quit watching the news.

A couple or three weeks ago I was at a local diner and asked to read their newspaper. They handed me on. Others wanted to look at it, too. It wasn't until about thirty minutes later someone noticed we were looking at a paper that was over three months old.

Two falls ago I was diagnosed with depression (maybe SADS), and anxiety. I've stopped watching the news. This is a fallen world. I believe I've internalized that now. The news is generally all about politicians. Like pro rasslers, politicians really need television to promote themselves.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
When my children were young I was far too busy with day-to-day life to read, or watch, much news coverage. For that, I'm profoundly grateful, as I was able to bring up the boys in a fairly carefree, worry-free way, not realising disasters were befalling other people all over the place. When I started reading such news items later, it was brought home to me how much more fragile the world can seem and how much more worried I'd have been at letting them have any sort of independence with 'danger around every corner'. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
My home page is the BBC, but if I follow a link it's always with the sound off.

Except if it's dub-step parrot.

There was a great line in a novel I read years ago (great title, To Kill The Potemkin): "I never watch the news. Reality is classified.".
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is an article by someone who thinks it is.

They have given up watching and reading News for four years now.

quote:
I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
My dad realised this and didn't listen to or watch the news for 20 years. He never made a fuss about it, just quietly gave it up.

If he occasionally saw it (at our house for example) he'd say "Yep, just the same as the last time I saw it", which could have been years.

I think they may both be right.
I find the news tedious so very rarely follow it. Enough to worry about at home. Why worry about what's happening half way around the world?
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
Surely news isn't just war reporting though? It includes stories about new countries, medical breakthroughs, exploration, sport and culture and changes in law.

Avid watching of rolling news isn't healthy for anyone, but I don't think a complete blackout is any better? You'll never get an interesting conversation with someone who's only interest is themselves.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

Surely news isn't just war reporting though? It includes stories about new countries, medical breakthroughs, exploration, sport and culture and changes in law.
IME the trouble is that it doesn't. As other posters here have said, most news just recycles the same few "top" stories which someone (who?) has decided are "news"

quote:
Avid watching of rolling news isn't healthy for anyone, but I don't think a complete blackout is any better? You'll never get an interesting conversation with someone who's only interest is themselves.
Just because someone doesn't accept that the media has a right to define what's important doesn't mean that they are only interested in themselves. They could be engaged in creative activities like performing music, acting, singing or playing in an orchestra. They could spend time volunteering, reading books, studying foreign languages, playing chess, scrabble or team sports and many, many other worthwhile activities requiring teamwork and social interaction. Why do you accept that the editors of the "news" have such authority to tell us all what we should think is important? Don't we have a right to choose what we will spend our time and energy doing?
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
[QUOTE]the trouble is that it doesn't. As other posters here have said, most news just recycles the same few "top" stories which someone (who?) has decided are "news"
Only if you choose to read/watch/listen to that kind of news. There's more than one source of information, and most people are more than capable of making up their own mind. I'm not suggesting we blindly sit in front of News 24 and ignore everything else.

quote:
They could be engaged in creative activities like performing music, acting, singing or playing in an orchestra. They could spend time volunteering, reading books, studying foreign languages, playing chess, scrabble or team sports and many, many other worthwhile activities requiring teamwork and social interaction.
Looking at the activities above: if you were performing in an orchestra wouldn't you want to know that Sir Colin Davis had died recently; book readers might want to know about the Booker awards; sports players often support a national team or sportsperson; volunteers for say a library or a children's charity might well be reading local news about council cuts.

In reality I tend to think that the percentage of people who don't take in any current affairs at all is vanishingly small.

[ 17. April 2013, 20:34: Message edited by: ArachnidinElmet ]
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
My home page is the BBC, but if I follow a link it's always with the sound off.
The BBC is my home page too and usually i have the sound off as well
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Except if it's dub-step parrot.
Thank you for enlarging my horizons!!!

(Coincidentally my cousin is a producer of music tracks and the main genre he hss been working with lately has been dub step.)
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
I'd happily ignore the news, most of it is deeply depressing and I don't need that, but Mr Nen, who spends his waking hours being drip fed the news via radio, TV, computer, iPad and iPhone, insists that it's our duty as Christians and good citizens to be Well Informed.

Nen - who hardly ever uses the news feed app she downloaded to her iPad.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
I'm not suggesting we blindly sit in front of News 24 and ignore everything else.
But that's exactly the kind of news the OP is talking about.

quote:

if you were performing in an orchestra wouldn't you want to know that Sir Colin Davis had died recently; book readers might want to know about the Booker awards; sports players often support a national team or sportsperson; volunteers for say a library or a children's charity might well be reading local news about council cuts.
You don't need the news to tell you this sort of thing, there are many specialist interest sources of information (including the people you pursue your interest with).

quote:
In reality I tend to think that the percentage of people who don't take in any current affairs at all is vanishingly small.
We're not discussing current affairs in general, the OP is about mainstream media news services. So I'll ask my question again, are you really prepared to let the media decide what you should pay attention to? And to pre-package and pre-digest it for you?
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
Not quite the same thing, but a couple of times I've given up listening to talk radio for Lent. Sometimes it can get to be just so much noise (and I don't even listen to right-wing talk!), and I found the quieting effect to be very beneficial spiritually.

When I watch TV news of a breaking story, such as the bombing this week in Boston, it's amazing how I can get sucked in. I can keep watching for some time before I realize they're not telling me anything new. They don't know anything new, but they have to say something because they've got air time to fill!
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
I'm sorry, Chamois, I'm obviously not being clear. My position is that:
-rolling news is not a Good Thing. As Al Eluia just said it can grind you down.
-there are other kinds of mainstream news. We can choose what and how to engage with it.
-we'd all be better off for being a little more concerned with things outside our immediate interest.
-cutting all news out entirely will not improve your life. Most people manage to see/read some news and lead a full and productive life.

Frankly, pretty much what Raptor Eye said all that way upthread.

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
So I'll ask my question again, are you really prepared to let the media decide what you should pay attention to? And to pre-package and pre-digest it for you?
Nope, and that includes not taking seriously any article published in a national newspaper telling me not to read national newspapers.

[ 18. April 2013, 22:20: Message edited by: ArachnidinElmet ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0