I know someone who had fantastic qualifications. But he was turned down because other people were more enthusiastic about the project. They HAD to do it, it was their lifes abition.

Im not saying that this is not you. But are you going for PhD's that are connected with your industry/undergrad dissitation? Are you going into the interview full of enthusiasm about the project and about the work.

Of course you may be doing this anyway. All im saying is you need to come accross as this is my lifes dream to be doing this and if I dont then I will die.

Anyway, just some ideas.

It is very exclusive. It will take you at least 20mins to fill out the form (we need ALL your details). It is very important you fill out all the parts correctly.

You will find that after getting your PhD, you will be very successful. In fact, credit card companies will think you are so rich (just due to the qualification) that they will send you huge bills to pay, mistakenly of course.

Acctually I got a Belford PhD, having taken a loan from DanB. It just took me 1hr 20mins to complete, as opposed to 1hr so I was forced to live in a rubbish dump s my degree was next to worthless. As I said, most of my rubbish dump friends had instantdegree qualifications (read into it what you will...)

But I realised that Belford was getting to much coverage and my degree was looking worthless (as everyone seems to have one). So I decided I would do well to get a new PhD from a new, more obscure institution.

University of Richmond is only through email im afraid. Send all your details, including bank account numbers, to [email protected]. I need the bank account so I can take a small paperwork fee in processing your application.... (Im joking, just in case!!)

I think my contribution to the world on this forum is worthy of a PhD. So you can all refer to me as 'Dr' from now on. From the University of Richmond. There. I beleive it, so thats it....

"He was determined, indignant, and manifestly proud of his work whatever anybody else may think of it, which he regards as original and as having made a practical contribution to improving the lives of many people.

"Whether it is appropriate to characterise it as scholarship worthy of academic recognition is another matter. No doubt many would think not.

"But one thing which is entirely clear to me is that Mr McKenna to this day does not believe it was bogus or that he misled anyone in allowing himself to be referred to as a PhD."

I like this quote from the judge. Aww bless him. Let him 'think' that it is worthwhile. Even though most others would not agree.

I think Golfpro makes a point about journalism bias. We tend to view journalism bias dependant on out own bias. If we beleive X and the media says X then we tend to say what a good unbiased opionon. If the media says Y, we say what biased rubbish. We read what we want to read. To a degree we see what we want to see. You may look at a million sources all from different opionons. I would bet that it would take a pretty large revelation to change ones hardcore viewpoint (if that was even possible).

So is the real problem with the media the fact that language is inherintly bias? Or perhaps that the way we read language is inherintly bias? No matter what words that reporter used to describe the UN posts deaths, it would be seen as bias by somebody. So in effect there is no such thing as being unbiased?

What is a truely unbiased statment about the UN post? Is uncertantity the only truely unbiased view? And is that a helpful way of looking at the world? Would anything ever get done?

But Pea, How do you know all this extra info?

Im also sure the BBC article goes on to point out that the occupants of the post phoned in 10 times to try and get them to stop. To use just one sentence to support your argument is surely bias as well.

How would you write it in an unbiased way then? The first statement, in my opionin, not particullarily biased. I feel that to say the Israeli army deliberatly targeted a UN outpost to kill the unarmed UN occupants is reading far to much into the facts. To say that is to take the fact and to come to the conclusion that is based on your own personal bias. You are interpreting the facts.

That first statement states that a UN post was hit and 4 occupants were killed. It doesnt presume to try and tell us that the attack was deliberate (the evidence may suggest this, but I dont think it proves this to be the case and that the occupants were murdered.

The second statement is horribly biased. But im not an expert as I guess you are, so I probably have it all wrong.

Is that Sharky and George? The crim busters of the sea...

When you say cooked, was it cooked cooked? Or was it the 'im so hungry I have to eat it now' cooked, i.e. not cooked properly. Was there a knife in it? Or shards of glass? Perhaps you can sue the pasta company.

Indeed. What about whats happening in the Gaza strip? It is pretty much the same thing. You could argue that Hamas is more behind the terroists than the lebonesse govenmnet, though the fact that the lebonesse govenment has done nothing to exert its authority (and has hallbella or whatever they are called MPs) doesnt really put it in any better position that Hamas. The conflict in the Gaza strip has been going on for a lot longer than that in Lebonon (and seems to be similar in its brutality). But no one seems to care anywhere near as much. There are no posts on here about trying to stop that conflict.

Iraq and probably more relavent Afganastan.

I must admit I get all my info through the media, though I would be interested in where those of you who said such a thing was rubbish or bias gets their information? Have you done a detailed study on the region and situation, interviewed many different people, spoken to govenment officials etc etc.

Both sides are really as bad as each other. Whether Israel or the terroists started it or provoced it, they are both to blame. Both sides obviously wanted this conflict, otherwise what on earth were the terroists expecting to happen? They knew just the right buttons to press. Its sad that its the poor civilians that are in the way.

As to the US, they funded the Israeli army to help protect Israel from the aggressive nations around it, and so they would have a friendly govenment in the middle east. The fact that their weapons are being used to commit these offenses is not directly their fault.

Also, after Iraq, how can any of our nations say Israel is wrong for invading a foregin country to get rid of terroists? Would be a bit hypocrytical of them.

True, they are not the same, most are internal strife. Although most of Africa was once colonial and to some extent when the european powers pulled out we did a pretty poor job of ensuring the situation was stable. So you could claim that we are partly responsible for some of the instability. Govenments tend to condem these things after they have gone on for a while. I think if we waited long enough the for their to be a huge humanitarian issue the world powers would step in. Though as seen in Africa, that does not always have much (or in some cases any) effect.

I think it is maybe more complicated than to say America gives weapons to Israel to commit war crimes. The whole situation is caused by the bad history between these nations. I say this, but I agree Israel has been heavy handed.

Though what would you propose as a good response. Try to be in the mind set of an Israeli, where giving into terroist demands is probably out of the question (its easy to be idealistic when you are far removed from the situation), and you certainly dont want to look weak.

As to protest, there would be no point in living in a democracy if you didnt (and you beleive in what you say). As others say, different political agendas will be addressed.

Though the thing that annoys me is that we are supposed to live in a democracy. If your view point is not adopted then why do some people turn to extremism. Obviously the majority dont want it, so why try to impose your views through force. That is heading back towards a dictatorship. Sorry, thats a slightly different point, and has nothing to do with the thread really (well except for extremism in democracy).

I think the reason we are not saying anything about this conflict is we have little to gain from trying to stop it (one could argue we have more to gain by letting it continue).

If you look back at conflicts in recent years, we only get involved in ones we care about. What about all this violence in Africa, with Somalia and the Dafur regions etc. All the civilians that are getting hurt and killed. But does anyone really say or do much about it (from the West)? no (i think there may have eventually been sactions in the Dafur case)! Are there protests trying to get the govenment to do something? no! Its only because its in the middle east, axis of terror, Israel etc etc that it gets lots of coverage and thus people pay attention to it.

Im not saying we shouldnt pay attention, I just think it is sad that noone seems to care about all these other cases. But then I suppose when do we stop? Do we topple every represive regime? Get involved in every incident?