Whats up with the BBC?

[mr. show]

Do they always report like this? Where are the details? If any one news organization lends credence to the loons, its gotta be the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3142582.stm

[OscartheGrouch]

Ummm ... the BA may or may not really like the faculty at his PhD alma mater being referred to as "loons" ...

Other than the sensationalist title and lead, which gets more people to read it so that's a GOOD thing, I thought it was a perfectly valid article. All quotes are from actual astronomers, which is where reporters are supposed to be getting info. There are links to the UVa astro department, the 2-Micron All Sky Survey, and the Sagittarius galaxy. There is a clear and simple explanation of how to distinguish the relevant stars. A major point of Good Astronomy is brought out, which is that galaxies are changing and evolving, not a one-time now-we're-stuck-with-them event as previously thought. There's a pretty picture of the mangled Sagittarius remnant, though the Milky Way disk is way too thick (for clarity). And yes, there are "alien" stars in our galaxy, which I didn't know, though I guess I haven't been paying attention.

In short, there are lots worse astronomy articles on the Beeb and elsewhere than this one. In fact, it's one of the better short articles I've seen lately.

[kilopi]

Yeah, who is it you're calling loons? In the article?

[mr. show]

wow, some thick heads on the board today! maybe i should post later in the day when everyone has had their coffee...

[tjm220]

wow, some thick heads on the board today! maybe i should post later in the day when everyone has had their coffee...

Insulting board members isn't going to accomplish much other than banishment and threadlock. What specifically is 'wrong' with the article?

[kilopi]

wow, some thick heads on the board today!

Did you post the wrong link?

[mr. show]

wow, some thick heads on the board today! maybe i should post later in the day when everyone has had their coffee...

Insulting board members isn't going to accomplish much other than banishment and threadlock. What specifically is 'wrong' with the article?

absolutely nothing - move along

[Jigsaw]

Just guessing that perhaps what he's referring to is the inflammatory journalistic language used in the article, words like "alien", "invade", "bully", "entrails, "cosmic violence", and "ripped", finally climaxed by this rather purple passage--

"After slow, continuous gnawing by the Milky Way, Sagittarius has been whittled down to the point that it cannot hold itself together much longer.

"We are seeing Sagittarius at the very end of its life as an intact system.

...stars from Sagittarius are now raining down on to our present position in the Milky Way.

"Stars from an alien galaxy are relatively near us. We have to re-think our assumptions about the Milky Way galaxy to account for this contamination."

--inflammatory journalistic language which tends to contribute to the perception of the "loons" (i.e. woowoos) that a cosmic disaster is about to happen, resulting in threads like Bmpbmp's recent "Oh my God".

Just a guess.

[mr. show]

Just guessing that perhaps what he's referring to is the inflammatory journalistic language used in the article, words like "alien", "invade", "bully", "entrails, "cosmic violence", and "ripped", finally climaxed by this rather purple passage--

"After slow, continuous gnawing by the Milky Way, Sagittarius has been whittled down to the point that it cannot hold itself together much longer.

"We are seeing Sagittarius at the very end of its life as an intact system.

...stars from Sagittarius are now raining down on to our present position in the Milky Way.

"Stars from an alien galaxy are relatively near us. We have to re-think our assumptions about the Milky Way galaxy to account for this contamination."

--inflammatory journalistic language which tends to contribute to the perception of the "loons" (i.e. woowoos) that a cosmic disaster is about to happen, resulting in threads like Bmpbmp's recent "Oh my God".

Just a guess.

Jigsaw~

I couldn't have said it better myself. I was at work before, and I always peruse badastronomy.com in stealth mode, so everything I was thinking was graciously posted by you - many thanks!!

[kilopi]

inflammatory journalistic language which tends to contribute to the perception of the "loons" (i.e. woowoos) that a cosmic disaster is about to happen

I do think that a cosmic disaster is about to happen, but I don't consider myself a loon.

[Archer17]

Jigsaw's "intervention" aside Mr Snow ..if you had time to comment on some members' coffee consumption, you could of answered some honest questions from fellow members or, at the very least, spoke for yourself when not at work. After what you posted, you owed them that much .. very poorly handled.

[mr. show]

Jigsaw's "intervention" aside Mr Snow ..if you had time to comment on some members' coffee consumption, you could of answered some honest questions from fellow members or, at the very least, spoke for yourself when not at work. After what you posted, you owed them that much .. very poorly handled.

i didn;t comment on the article because it seemed self - evident

everyone's a critic archee

especially on message boards

=D>

[freddo]

I have to defend mr. show here - I knew exactly what he was getting at. Anyone who has not read bmpbmp's thread "oh my god" (specifically the final page) could possibly be excused for not understanding the tilt of mr. show's comments.

I don't agree with the follow-up method - despite my agreeance on the article's self-evidence.

And I am constantly upset by the sensationalism the BBC puts on their articles.

'lends credence to the loons' means gives doomsayers ammunition. It's not the first time:

BBC is equally bad at debunking the Apollohoax

I do think that a cosmic disaster is about to happen, but I don't consider myself a loon.

That's a little obtuse - do you specifically believe that a Saggitarian star is going to enter our Solar System in the immediate future? You're right, this particular story does not lend credence to all supposition of a cosmic disaster, but it's bad nonetheless.

As you can see - the BBC really know how to stir up the fear factor.

[Archer17]

Jigsaw's "intervention" aside Mr Snow ..if you had time to comment on some members' coffee consumption, you could of answered some honest questions from fellow members or, at the very least, spoke for yourself when not at work. After what you posted, you owed them that much .. very poorly handled.

i didn;t comment on the article because it seemed self - evident

everyone's a critic archee

especially on message boards

=D>

What are you clapping for? .. you have nothing to be proud of. You post a link, add some unclear comments, ignore legitimate questions regarding your post, and hide behind Jigsaw speaking for you. I'll ignore you calling me "archee," could've been an honest mistake (ain't my real name anyway), but "clapping" ? .. like I said, very poorly played. Your actions speak for themselves when Jigsaw don't speak for you.

[Archer17]

freddo, I agree with the "sensationalism" of the BBC article's title, but not Mr Snow's posting style .. he should be the one explaining his onus, not you or Jigsaw. I understand what you're saying but, at least you explained yourself. That's my point with Snow here, he didn't and made no attempt when people asked.

[kilopi]

That's a little obtuse

Sorry, I'm not as quick at picking up self-evident things as I used to be.

Waaait a minute. If a couple people post saying what's that all about--wouldn't that be self-evident that it wasn't self-evident?

I notice two people have referenced a thread by bmpbmp called "oh my god". Maybe that's what I'm missing? This it? I see that it mentions the BBC there at the last...but isn't that the same article? I'll have to look into this deeper.

[mr. show]

freddo, I agree with the "sensationalism" of the BBC article's title, but not Mr Snow's posting style .. he should be the one explaining his onus, not you or Jigsaw. I understand what you're saying but, at least you explained yourself. That's my point with Snow here, he didn't and made no attempt when people asked.

like i said earlier, i was at work when i first brought it up, and it seemed self-evident at the time. when I came home, jigsaw had posted similar opinions on the article.

if you like derailing threads, you are succeeding.

the clapping was for you, sir. very well done.

[ljbrs]

I subscribe to both SCIENCE and NATURE and their methods of explaining science seem to be quite different from the methods shown by the BBC. I prefer going to the source (the LETTERS, as in NATURE, and the REPORTS, as in SCIENCE).

All of this reminds me that NATURE is online tonight, and I ought to visit it to find out what is new this week in astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology.

Ta ta...

ljbrs #-o

[Archer17]

freddo, I agree with the "sensationalism" of the BBC article's title, but not Mr Snow's posting style .. he should be the one explaining his onus, not you or Jigsaw. I understand what you're saying but, at least you explained yourself. That's my point with Snow here, he didn't and made no attempt when people asked.

like i said earlier, i was at work when i first brought it up, and it seemed self-evident at the time. when I came home, jigsaw had posted similar opinions on the article.

if you like derailing threads, you are succeeding.

the clapping was for you, sir. very well done.

If this is how you do threads, then I'm glad I'm "succeeding". You responding the way you did had no defense.. clap your hands numb for all I care. Maybe next time you get a brainstorm for a thread, you can post straightforward and answer for yourself instead of hiding behind others .. just a thought :wink:

[freddo]

freddo, I agree with the "sensationalism" of the BBC article's title, but not Mr Snow's posting style .. he should be the one explaining his onus, not you or Jigsaw. I understand what you're saying but, at least you explained yourself. That's my point with Snow here, he didn't and made no attempt when people asked.

Agreed mate, as I said I did not agree with the follow up, but I was surprised people misinterpreted his initial vague(ish) comments. That said I had pretty much come straight to this thread from "Oh My God," so it was right at the front of my mind.

Waaait a minute. If a couple people post saying what's that all about--wouldn't that be self-evident that it wasn't self-evident?

Ah, but doesn't the act of you pointing out that it's self evident that it's not self-evident, indicate that it's not self-evident that it's self-evident that it's not self-evident? :-k

Seriously though, I highlighted my surprise that people couldn't extrapolate the message from the OP - particularly who the 'loons' were. I guess that makes it NOT self-evident, in spite of how obvious I found it to be.

I notice two people have referenced a thread by bmpbmp called "oh my god". Maybe that's what I'm missing? This it? I see that it mentions the BBC there at the last...but isn't that the same article? I'll have to look into this deeper.

That's the one - and the article IS one and the same. You can see bmpbmp's knee-jerk reaction to the sensationalist tone. I also gave you a link to OSA in my last post where people are doing exactly the same thing.

I imagine a 5 minute search of GodLike would show people are talking about it there saying 'Oh My God.'

[Archer17]

I subscribe to both SCIENCE and NATURE and their methods of explaining science seem to be quite different from the methods shown by the BBC. I prefer going to the source (the LETTERS, as in NATURE, and the REPORTS, as in SCIENCE).

All of this reminds me that NATURE is online tonight, and I ought to visit it to find out what is new this week in astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology.

Ta ta...

ljbrs #-o

I agree the BBC sensationalized this cosmic cannibalism. I think they're a good media outlet but I don't subscribe to some of their spin. Their handling of the Apollo hoax wasn't exactly presented correctly as we already know. Most media is sensationalist in nature, unfortunately

[Jigsaw]

(Freddo: He posted it over at GLP, too. Sigh.)

[freddo]

He posted it over at GLP, too. Sigh.

I imagine a 5 minute search of GodLike would show people are talking about it there saying 'Oh My God.'

Somedays I hate being right.

Not really.

[Archer17]

(Freddo: He posted it over at GLP, too. Sigh.)

Jigsaw - So, reading between the lines (since I have to), I guess I locked heads with Storm, aka Kent's "vassal" .. it would explain a few things. Why those woowoos bother to post here is a puzzle, unless you examine the "troll" option. If I have this right (since you just posted a link to GLP and an 'aside' to freddo) I strongly urge you to refrain from being his (or anyone else's) mouthpiece in the the future on this board. Ain't right, even if it turns out I misinterpreted your innuendo & it isn't Storm (Kent's "pet") .. Speak for yourself .. quoting from the FAQ #6:

Do not post for other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themself. Again, if this happens twice it's a banning offense.

Mr Show registered. Your intervention caused mine, Jigsaw.

[freddo]

Archer17 - is that directed at Jigsaw?

Your post is most confusing.

[Archer17]

Archer17 - is that directed at Jigsaw?

Your post is most confusing.

Yes, I'll edit it for "clarity"

[Archer17]

Is "Mr.Snow" Storm or not? .. If not, her post is confusing

[freddo]

Oh!!! Ignore my PM archer17...

Storm posted on OSA and GLP - and did it to provoke fear.

Mr. Show posted here with the article to provoke anger against the BBC.

Not one and the same character - and differing motives. I hope that's put it in context for ya.

[Archer17]

well, I can't feel too bad about getting his name wrong. "archee" can you imagine?! :wink:

[freddo]

well, I can't feel too bad about getting his name wrong. "archee" can you imagine?! :wink:

I know - but I knew you were making an associative link with the "snow" name - thus my emphasis.