Re: Slightly OT: Louis Theroux talks to the Phelps


"Mike Hubbard" <mhubbardNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:14h0135mp2gjnfsgr59j95a6kcfufnvekt@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:11:34 +0100, Halla
<halla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Pasting it all because I'd already copied it all for pasting
elsewhere. :-)

I admit that I have this childish impulse to believe that anyone with
vews as abhorrent as this lot is not completely human and deliberately
fosters evil, and it's galling to hear they get on like the rest of us
when they're not spreading hate. <wry g>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6507971.stm

I watched this programme, and found it disturbing that an entire
family could be like that. They have given themselves permission to
behave appallingly, and then when other people object they claim that
proves they are right. There is just no arguing with that sort of
people.

I realise that Louis "schick" is to pretend to be
sympathetic to his "subject" and then ridicule them in the voiceover
afterwards, but perhaps it would have been better if they had not been
given what used to be called "the oxygen of publicity".


Yeah, I caught a segment of it: they looked like a pretty
good example of a collectively brainwashed group to me.
As you say, Theroux's fixation on, and manipulation of, the
sensational is pretty despicable - so I do tend to turn this
kind of thing off if I stumble upon it.

--
Mike Hubbard <*>
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht oredr the ltteers in a
wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in
the rghit pclae. The rset
can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is
bcuseae the huamn mnid deos
not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Zen spam blocker active - there isn't one, but it looks like there is. So
leave the NOSPAM in.


.

Loading