Feminisation of the BBC

[scotia]

[I thought MRA was Moral ReArmament.
TJH

That's a blast from the past. I seem to remember full page adverts where they claimed to have averted international political disasters, but I never knew what they did and what it was all about. They seem to have died - otherwise how did the USA get Trump? Maybe is was the lack of a BBC in the USA.
p.s. I still haven't followed Mel's link to find out the alternative meaning of MRA.

[UncleEbenezer]

p.s. I still haven't followed Mel's link to find out the alternative meaning of MRA.

Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Or so says google.

Mel might have some alternative meaning that she expects us magically to know. HLAW.

[scotia]

p.s. I still haven't followed Mel's link to find out the alternative meaning of MRA.

Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Or so says google.
Mel might have some alternative meaning that she expects us magically to know. HLAW.

So Google also panders to irrational fears by missing out the key word Nuclear (Magnetic Resonance).

[Clitheroekid]

The worst of it is, I suspect you thought you were being reasonable and balanced

Never, and I resent the insult! Let me remind you that this is the Snug, not Polite Discussions, and that reasonable and balanced views would be entirely out of place.

Agent provocateur, c'est moi!

[melonfool]

p.s. I still haven't followed Mel's link to find out the alternative meaning of MRA.

Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Or so says google.

Mel might have some alternative meaning that she expects us magically to know. HLAW.

I don't expect you to magically know, I expect if you bandy around unpleasant opinions about feminists that you are on the ball enough to know these sorts of things.

Or be interested enough to find out for yourself. Or, if you can't manage that, follow the link I magically put up for you which was even referred to in the post you're quoting.

Mel

[Stonge]

Has the fact that women's brains are smaller than men's been totally discredited?

[swill453]

Has the fact that women's brains are smaller than men's been totally discredited?

Perhaps a woman might have phrased the question a bit better. How could one discredit a fact?

Scott.

[scotia]

Has the fact that women's brains are smaller than men's been totally discredited?

Perhaps a woman might have phrased the question a bit better. How could one discredit a fact?
Scott.

I think you may have regretted this opinion had you been a student at one of my wife's tutorial sessions. Her technique was to sit in the audience - and select students to make their contributions.

[tjh290633]

My wife had the answer to those who wanted equal rights for women. She said that she was already superior. I have to agree with her (under protest).

TJH

[UncleEbenezer]

Has the fact that women's brains are smaller than men's been totally discredited?

So are their bodies. Though they're still a lot bigger than most species around us.

You don't discredit a fact. You discredit, or argue about, inferences that might be drawn from a fact. Probably fair to say that some of the inferences that may have been drawn from that fact are deeply suspect (although some of those might in turn be little more than strawmen set up to obfuscate the matter). Or in cases where inferences are backed by good evidence, you make it taboo.

[XFool]

The worst of it is, I suspect you thought you were being reasonable and balanced

Never, and I resent the insult! Let me remind you that this is the Snug, not Polite Discussions, and that reasonable and balanced views would be entirely out of place.

Yeah! Damn right. If it's "reasonable and balanced" discussion you are after, then get thee to 'Polite Discussions'.

[XFool]

p.s. I still haven't followed Mel's link to find out the alternative meaning of MRA.

Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Or so says google.
Mel might have some alternative meaning that she expects us magically to know. HLAW.

So Google also panders to irrational fears by missing out the key word Nuclear (Magnetic Resonance).

A bit OT I know, stilll...

I know this is a commonly held opinion, but is it true? (I don't know)

I too dislike the way in which 'things' seem to get renamed periodically these days. BUT, perhaps there is a reasonable explanation - beyond avoiding the dreaded 'nuclear' word? There is a difference between the physical phenomenon (Nuclear....) and the machines and the process in practice.

Consider 'X-Ray(s)' which, at least in the UK in layman's terms now seems to mean: The physical phenomenon, the machinery, the process, the uses, the investigations, the physical outcome, the end result, the data, the information, practically anything at all involving 'looking inside something' - which therefore would include the use of MRI etc...

IMO, this is far from satisfactory. Perhaps the renaming was a genuine attempt to avoid going down the same path? Just a thought. c.f. 'CAT' Scan*.


* Even though the original meaning of THAT sometimes seems to be getting lost!

[scotia]

I too dislike the way in which 'things' seem to get renamed periodically these days. BUT, perhaps there is a reasonable explanation - beyond avoiding the dreaded 'nuclear' word? There is a difference between the physical phenomenon (Nuclear....) and the machines and the process in practice.

I appreciate your attempt to sanitise the exclusion of the word Nuclear - but it is fundamental to the physical phenomenon being used. Conventional everyday magnetism is related to electrons. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) involves the spin (magnetic moment) of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) which make up the nucleus. NMR involves the spin flipping of a nucleon. It's difficult to see any rational reason for dropping the word nuclear. I suppose it may have embarrassed local authorities who promoted themselves as being a "Nuclear Free Zone". I have never worked out how they replaced the nuclei in all of their atoms.

[UncleEbenezer]

I appreciate your attempt to sanitise the exclusion of the word Nuclear

Nevertheless, directing your ire at google is surely classic nuntiocide.

[XFool]

I too dislike the way in which 'things' seem to get renamed periodically these days. BUT, perhaps there is a reasonable explanation - beyond avoiding the dreaded 'nuclear' word? There is a difference between the physical phenomenon (Nuclear....) and the machines and the process in practice.

I appreciate your attempt to sanitise the exclusion of the word Nuclear - but it is fundamental to the physical phenomenon being used.

Yes, yes! To the "physical phenomenon being used" - as per X-Rays to CAT scans and well, to err... 'X-Rays' (sic)! Which was my point.

As I said, I really don't know the truth here. I was just suggesting what seems to me a reasonable, alternative explanation to the more usually offered one.

MRI is also somewhat easier to say than NMR.

[Stonge]

How could one discredit a fact?

Scott.

You seriously have to ask after the Brexit debacle.

[zico]

Agent provocateur, c'est moi!

That's a brief reply, shouldn't it be longer,eh?

[UncleIan]

and ultimately the people tend to dislike the license fee. The license fee model is in tatters and requires bullying and intimidation to collect. Their services are way too expensive to compete with streaming services like Netflix, and YouTube has disintermediated the new generation of digital natives such that they really don’t care about the grandiose and self regarding institution of the BBC one jot. Once all the nation is streaming content, what role does the BBC actually fulfill? If it is just another content provider then let the market forces loose, I say.

Netflix @ £8 pcm
Terrestrial @ £12.50 pcm
Sky @ £30+++ ??? pcm

Well I don't have sky to know if I'd watch it 50% more than the other two combined, but from brief exposure I suspect not. Long live the licence fee I say, a bargain.

(Not a license fee payer, and never will be)

But once a troll always a troll eh?

[swill453]

Don't forget that if you watch Sky you also need a licence.

Scott.

[StepOne]

and ultimately the people tend to dislike the license fee. The license fee model is in tatters and requires bullying and intimidation to collect. Their services are way too expensive to compete with streaming services like Netflix, and YouTube has disintermediated the new generation of digital natives such that they really don’t care about the grandiose and self regarding institution of the BBC one jot. Once all the nation is streaming content, what role does the BBC actually fulfill? If it is just another content provider then let the market forces loose, I say.

Try living in another country (pretty much any other country) and watching telly there for a year or two and you'll see how good the BBC is.

StepOne