Making the news today....

[coppice cutter]

8 hours ago, Mesterh said:

I suppose it depends on what the definition of WW3 is. If it's a nuclear holocaust then I think that's not happening anytime soon. The West v brics, quite possible.

Exactly this.

 

Just because it isn't what we've been told for decades that WW3 would be, we're not recognising the war in Ukraine for what it's turning in to.

 

Again, the remarkable lack of coverage isn't helping.

[Mick Dempsey]

18 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

Exactly this.

 

Just because it isn't what we've been told for decades that WW3 would be, we're not recognising the war in Ukraine for what it's turning in to.

 

Again, the remarkable lack of coverage isn't helping.

Lack of coverage of what?

[trigger_andy]

26 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

Exactly this.

 

Just because it isn't what we've been told for decades that WW3 would be, we're not recognising the war in Ukraine for what it's turning in to.

 

Again, the remarkable lack of coverage isn't helping.

Define lack of coverage. The internet is awash with coverage. The news is awash with the Western slant on the war. The War is localised to two countries who really should just be left to it. But of course the West wants to launder Billions through Ukraine so will happily stoke the fires. 

 

Its not even remotely a world war. 

[Mick Dempsey]

It has its own ticker on the top line.

Two top stories.

Zelensky arrives at G7.

Yanks going to let their F16s be used by the Ukrainians.

 

”remarkable lack of coverage”

 

 

 

[coppice cutter]

OK, additionally, remarkable lack of coverage on the ground.

 

Furthermore, I don't do anti-social media.

 

If the main difference in my perception of events is because that's how things are covered nowadays and I'm simply old and out of touch because of that then so be it.

[trigger_andy]

21 minutes ago, coppice cutter said:

OK, additionally, remarkable lack of coverage on the ground.

 

Furthermore, I don't do anti-social media.

 

If the main difference in my perception of events is because that's how things are covered nowadays and I'm simply old and out of touch because of that then so be it.

If you make a personal choice to keep your head buried in the sand and refuse to make use of the tool that is social media and moan that your chosen feed is not delivering you the coverage you so desperately want then thats on you. 

 

Stop pretending there is a lack of coverage because you refuse to leave your comfort zone. 🙄

[coppice cutter]

Didn't I say "so be it".

 

Now feel free to f**k off!

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by coppice cutter

[trigger_andy]

1 hour ago, coppice cutter said:

Didn't I say "so be it".

 

Now feel free to f**k off!

 

Huge difference between “so be it” and implying that the coverage is not out there though. It’s out there, you just chose not to want to watch it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

[Whoppa Choppa]

On 14/05/2023 at 11:01, coppice cutter said:

I was going to say that that is a joke.

 

But actually the consistent decline in quality of information from the Met Office has gotten to the stage that it has caused so many losses and so much distress amongst those who previously relied on it that it is no longer at all funny.

 

Ain't that the truth. They can't tell you what the weather was yesterday let alone tomorrow.

[Mick Dempsey]

5 hours ago, coppice cutter said:

OK, additionally, remarkable lack of coverage on the ground.

 

Furthermore, I don't do anti-social media.

 

If the main difference in my perception of events is because that's how things are covered nowadays and I'm simply old and out of touch because of that then so be it.

“There’s nothing about it on the news!”

 

Gets shown it’s all over the news (The BBC in fact, on the website and on the telly)

 

”I don’t watch the news”

 

Comedy gold.