We’re not into censoring comments, except for when we get made to look like twats, and then it’s quite vital
Stephen Glover's barely readable nonsense about the Hadron experiment opened up a can of whoopass, but sadly you wouldn't know that by looking at the Mail's website now.
You remember the other day the Mail said:
We're not into censoring comments
Luckily, Citizen Smith poster on Mailwatch managed to scoop up a few before the mods got at them:
You say a 'proper journalist' would be sceptical - unfortunately you can't do better than a disjointed rant including the EU, science, global warming and the BBC. Your article is utter drivvel.
To put it in your terms " no amount of scientific experiments will ever begin to answer the most interesting question of all - how, in God's name, did you ever get a job as a columnist in the first place? "
- Mark Mackenzie, London UK, 11/9/2008 10:54
"countless billions of pounds"? I assume that you have trouble counting to 5 then, as that's more or less the cost. The LHC has been under construction for about 30 years, funded by many if not all European countries. £5 billion divided by 30 (years) divided by n (number of countries that have donated towards the project) = fantastic value for money for what is the most ambitious and potentially revealing scientific experiment ever conducted. Not only is the total cost to the taxpayer in this country less than that of the 2012 Olympics, it's less than we spend on pornography every year! Jeez, anything to have a pop at either (a) 'scientists' or (b) the BBC, eh?
- Carl, Princes Risborough, 11/9/2008 10:06
Get a sense of adventure in your life mate.
- martyn, Wirral, UK, 11/9/2008 8:23
"There is an intellectual tyranny at work here - the tyranny of mediocre journalism, perhaps, of the godless, certainly - but no less dangerous for that. "
I think this quotation from your article sums up your position perfectly. A mediocre journalist trying to explain something he does not understand, therefore assuming it must be wrong.
- nickine9, london uk, 11/9/2008 9:32
"I suppose some sub-committee of the European Union approved it all on our behalf."
Risks from turning on the LHC are much lower than the risks that the Earth would be hit by a "dinosaur-killer" asteroid that we'd missed seeing.
Your personal risk from the LHC is much, much lower than your chances of being hit by a bus or being on a plane which crashes. Or tripping over your trousers..
The LHC killing us all is less likely than a nearby supernova blast killing us. Or us being hit by an intergalactic radiation burst.. Really. The LHC is less risky to you than turning on your bedroom light. Worry about something that's important instead.
"no amount of scientific experiments will .. answer the question of all - why were we ever put on this earth?"
Actually, that IS pretty much the question it's designed to help answer. You don't get much more fundamental than "Why does the universe exist the way it does?"
- Katie, Cambridge, 11/9/2008 9:34
Now if you go there, they have disappeared, but in their place are:
It's European, it's Government funded, it offers an excuse to send loads of people off an a money and expenses no problem boondoggle; that's all The BBC needs to know.
- Steve, London UK, 11/9/2008 0:40
The only sense these days is found in the Daily Mail. As an Oxford educated Theology graduate its nice to know that there are those in the media who appreciate the difference between physics and metaphysics. Hopefully indeed your words will provoke a nice public debate on God's existence and purpose, once upon a time Britain used to be a good forum for such things. Who could imagine looking at the BBC of 2008 that on the BBC of 1948 gave a platform for intellectual heavyweights like Fredrick Copleston and Betrand Russell to debate such things? How times change...
- Myles Bailey, London, UK, 11/9/2008 0:54
An excellent article; I agree completely. People, largely because of false advertisement, have forgotten that science has limits, and CANNOT tell us 'why' anything, just as it cannot, and has not, proved or disproved God. 'Has not' because the evolution theory is certainly valid on a small scale, but not genetically possible, mutations or no mutations, on a large one. There will never be proof until the end, but there are signs.
- Alyssa, America, 11/9/2008 3:46
Yet more evidence that the BBC is not as it likes to portray itself a 'News service with integrity' but is an atheistic, PC, anti family, pro Gay organisation bent on social engineering the gullible public.
- Peter Barry, Bangkok, Thailand, 11/9/2008 6:31
See? No room for comments telling Stephen he's got it wrong; plenty of room for comments slagging off the BBC as "atheistic, PC, anti family and pro gay".
But of course, they're not into censoring comments. Obviously. It just so happens they randomly deleted the negative ones and left up overwhelmingly positive ones. That's just an accident. Isn't it? Move on, nothing to see here...
Buy my book, it’s great
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.