• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The CBC.

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Ok, the below article is just a springboard to launch into some conversation regarding the CBC. Lately I've been hearing allot of debate regarding it, and personally feel the concerns are unsubstantiated and willfully instigated by a certain 'group'.

Liberal flirts with sale of CBC

Source

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

With the Ontario Liberal government now holding up the prospect of selling Polkaroo off to the highest bidder, the last thing proponents of public broadcasting want to hear is that CBC may also be on the auction block.

As reported in the Star, TVOntario could be in play to pay off the $5.6 billion mess left behind by the Tories. Almost like former premier Mike Harris is getting his wish to privatize TVO.

Meanwhile CBC, which recently received a $60 million cash infusion from the feds, continues to be a favourite target of conservatives, Conservatives — and columnists at CanWest Global newspapers.

It's hardly surprising that they would support the privatization of CBC.

But when a member of Prime Minister Paul Martin's cabinet calls the public network a "monster," while suggesting that potential foreign buyers could be regulated into ensuring it remains — to borrow a laughable Fox News phrase — "fair and balanced," then that's news.

It all happened last Wednesday evening on CBC Newsworld's counterSpin, which invited NDP leader Jack Layton, Conservative Party finance critic Monte Solberg and National Revenue Minister Stan Keyes to face off over the $250 million sponsorship scandal.

During a commercial break, with the tape still rolling, Solberg compared CBC to Canada Post and then, as is his oft-stated position, started to say that while Newsworld has its purpose, the main network was an expensive and unnecessary proposition.

The exchange continued, with Keyes, a former broadcaster at Barrie's CKVR and Hamilton's CHCH, charging that CBC "has become a monster, quite frankly."

"Yeah, it's a huge expense," agreed Solberg, adding that "ratings have fallen like a stone."

Then, according to a transcript, which arrived in a plain brown E-mail, Keyes said: "It's a billion dollars we have put towards CBC television and we witness direct competition between a public broadcaster and the private sector."

(You'd think that the national revenue minister would know that billion bucks also covers French TV, northern services plus four radio networks, no?)

At this point Layton, clearly disgusted, sarcastically said, "We'll have Fox take over the whole media operation.

"Good God, George Bush's mouthpiece: I mean really, they'll buy it if it's up for sale."

"No, we can regulate it and make sure that doesn't happen," insisted Keyes.

Retorted Layton, "No, but you are changing the regulations precisely to allow them."

Which, if private broadcasters get their way, will happen: Exactly a year ago, CanWest president Leonard Asper urged a House of Commons committee to allow foreign media companies to buy Canadian broadcasters. Having big fat and new sources of capital would help CanWest with its massive debt.

A government decision on foreign ownership of cable companies is reportedly expected this month. If outsiders are permitted to buy up chunks of Rogers and Shaw, you can be sure that it won't be long before they can buy up TV stations here.

Which is why Keyes' comments about CBC being privatized, as casual as they may appear, are important to put on the public record right now.

=============================
A few questions about the issues raised in this. Despite having an 80% approval rating among it's audience, why is it conservatives want to gut the CBC (they call it reviewing it's mandate) and have even claimed it as being left wing and anti-American. How do you view the CBC?

Despite Paul Martin claiming his support[url] of the CBC, this flirting with the sell off of it has me concerned. Anyone know the legalities behind this? Do you support a levy based public broadcaster?

Personally I love the CBC. 99.1 is fresh, and CBC newsworld does real news. This idea of privatizing it is IMO flirting with disaster, and personally I'd pay more to keep it on air. It seems from a certain camp that competition is only relevant among privatized entities as anytime a public service has some success, the idea of privatizing it keeps popping up.
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
Gah. Let's just sell everything off!

lousy fuckers.

That's my contribution to this thread. Lousy motherfucking fuckers.

I can't believe fucking Dalton. A wolf in sheep's clothing indeed.

I wonder how long he's going to be able to milk this "surprise $5 billion deficit" to promote his very conservative agenda.
 

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
And another thing!

I'm getting really pissed off with this whole American/"Business" view of EVERYTHING where if a public asset isn't making money hand over fist, then it's obviously money being wasted.

Has it ever occured to any of these dumbasses that the value of a publicly-owned entity like the CBC is more than monetary?

Cripes... these days it's like if you can't assign a high dollar value to something then it's utterly useless.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
And another thing!

I'm getting really pissed off with this whole American/"Business" view of EVERYTHING where if a public asset isn't making money hand over fist, then it's obviously money being wasted.

Has it ever occured to any of these dumbasses that the value of a publicly-owned entity like the CBC is more than monetary?

Cripes... these days it's like if you can't assign a high dollar value to something then it's utterly useless.

The ultimate argument among the 8% who disapproved of the way the CBC was run was mostly that they were paying levy's to an institution that didn't seem to support their viewpoint. SO, they disingenuously attack the CBC with the idea that it's a tax hog. It seems they wouldn't be satisfied with it until it becomes a corporate conservative mouthpeice ala Asper industries.

Although the CBC never goes far enough as I would like in asking hard questions, it is by far the best in asking them out of any media news source out there. Just taking The Current for example, it always has a view from each side of the political debate, not matter how minor or major the issue is. Today they had Tony (cement) Clement on letting him present himself and his campaign for the conservative leadership, and the irony is he's even been a vocal reformist regarding the way the CBC is done.

The key line in the above article is that the debate over the CBC has been led by Canwest Global, which makes the issue in my mind, untenable given the obvious bias of the instigator.
 

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
The key line in the above article is that the debate over the CBC has been led by Canwest Global, which makes the issue in my mind, untenable given the obvious bias of the instigator.
Wouldn't it just be paradise if all media in Canada was like CanWest?

I think I just soiled my pants dreaming about what a fucking utopia it would be.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
Despite having an 80% approval rating among it's audience, why is it conservatives want to gut the CBC
Nobody is arguing that people who watch and listen to CBC are not satisfied with it ... the problem is that not enough people are watching or listening to CBC in the first place.

Check the ratings for yourself ... aside from hockey and occasional news programming, CBC does not even register in the Top 20 ratings in Canada:

http://www.bbm.ca/en/top_programs.html

The CBC may indeed provide a valuable resource in terms of promoting "Canadian identity", but what good is this resource if nobody is paying attention? Is watching Road to Avonlea worth a billion dollars? Wouldn't you rather have better health care instead?
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by AdRiaN
Nobody is arguing that people who watch and listen to CBC are not satisfied with it ... the problem is that not enough people are watching or listening to CBC in the first place.

Check the ratings for yourself ... aside from hockey and occasional news programming, CBC does not even register in the Top 20 ratings in Canada:

http://www.bbm.ca/en/top_programs.html

The CBC may indeed provide a valuable resource in terms of promoting "Canadian identity", but what good is this resource if nobody is paying attention? Is watching Road to Avonlea worth a billion dollars? Wouldn't you rather have better health care instead?

Quantitative measurements are NOT indicative of qualitative validity. Not all broadcasting is about catching the most ears & eyes, and we all know that broadcasting outlets that adopt this as their primary modus operandi suffer horribly in the denomination of their content. Being part of a marginal listener & levy supported broadcast outlet myself, I can say that it’s an extremely valuable resource in the community it serves. Anyone making the case to get rid of it, or make it more popular through a fundamental change in it’s mandate obviously doesn’t understand or is willfully ignoring it’s role, and is completely missing the point.

You make the point of a billion dollars while disingenuously pinning it on Road To Avonlea (an award winning program BTW). For a nation wide multi channel radio & TV station, that produces content that serves Canada’s many regional interests, I think it’s quite normal. And just like a conservative asshat, you insinuate that money is being funneled from social programs to pay for it. Why don’t you post some statistics on how much corporate welfare is handed out per year, then we’ll talk about money for healthcare.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by OTIS
Quantitative measurements are NOT indicative of qualitative validity. Not all broadcasting is about catching the most ears & eyes, and we all know that broadcasting outlets that adopt this as their primary modus operandi suffer horribly in the denomination of their content. Being part of a marginal listener & levy supported broadcast outlet, I can say that it’s an extremely valuable resource in the community it serves. Anyone making the case to get rid of it, or make it more popular through a fundamental change in it’s mandate obviously doesn’t understand or is willfully ignoring it’s role, and is completely missing the point.

You make the point of a billion dollars while disingenuously pinning it on Road To Avonlea (an award winning program BTW). For a nation wide multi channel radio & TV station, that produces content that serves Canada’s many regional interests, I think it’s quite normal. And just like a conservative asshat, you insinuate that money is being funneled from social programs to pay for it. Why don’t you post some statistics on how much corporate welfare is handed out per year, then we’ll talk about money for healthcare.


Fair enough why not member supported like PBS in the USA. See CBC uses commercials and advertising, they run a private company that gets money whenever it needs it and in the most un transparent ways spend it.

Our tax dollars buy lunches for everyone, pay for makeup and pay for news reporters. Well obviously they are in bed with the money, how can we expect them to really be a voice to the people when they have to kiss the government ass to get money.

The old days where only one channel was availible more than 2 hours out of the city came to an end. Satelite Television makes more sense, we don't need massive transmission towers all the way to the North Pole anymore.

The CBC was a necesity for decades, It had to be there. But technology has made the CBC somewhat onsolete in my views. A much simpler broadcasting system needs to be authorised. CBC is a monster that needs to be broken down. They produce comedy shildrens programming and news with embedded reporters in war zones. What sense does it make.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Fair enough why not member supported like PBS in the USA. See CBC uses commercials and advertising, they run a private company that gets money whenever it needs it and in the most un transparent ways spend it.

Our tax dollars buy lunches for everyone, pay for makeup and pay for news reporters. Well obviously they are in bed with the money, how can we expect them to really be a voice to the people when they have to kiss the government ass to get money.

The old days where only one channel was availible more than 2 hours out of the city came to an end. Satelite Television makes more sense, we don't need massive transmission towers all the way to the North Pole anymore.

This would all be true if the CBC’s only role was to bring content to those who can't get it otherwise, and that broadcasting via antenna is a major cost, both of which are untrue. Where technology has set in, CBC has adjusted it's technology to reflect the change. As a side note, I bought a place that’s built on the original CBC broadcast tower site. Broadcast licenses from the CRTC are nothing, and the actual analog broadcast equipment is a drop in the bucket given their budget. Hell, if CIUT can maintain a Class C broadcast with their transmitter on the bank of Montréal building, (a license any commercial station would die to get their hands on in Toronto) the CBC can certainly handle it.

Originally posted by Ditto Much
The CBC was a necesity for decades, It had to be there. But technology has made the CBC somewhat onsolete in my views. A much simpler broadcasting system needs to be authorised. CBC is a monster that needs to be broken down. They produce comedy shildrens programming and news with embedded reporters in war zones. What sense does it make.

Obviously if you think this is all the CBC is about, then you don’t listen to it or watch it often. I love how you use the word “monster”, watch Global much?
 

silver1

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by OTIS
Quantitative measurements are NOT indicative of qualitative validity. Not all broadcasting is about catching the most ears & eyes, and we all know that broadcasting outlets that adopt this as their primary modus operandi suffer horribly in the denomination of their content. Being part of a marginal listener & levy supported broadcast outlet myself, I can say that it’s an extremely valuable resource in the community it serves. Anyone making the case to get rid of it, or make it more popular through a fundamental change in it’s mandate obviously doesn’t understand or is willfully ignoring it’s role, and is completely missing the point.

I agree that quantitative measurements are not indicative of qualitative validity and I also agree that the CBC serves a very important role.

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

But at the end of the day there has to be some breaking point of attatching a monetary value on to the worth of what the CBC accomplishes. i.e. At what cost are people willing to pay for the CBC and the role it plays.

If the Gov't kicks in 60 million a year is that ok? What if they had to kick in 100 million? Or 200? or do we need it regardless of cost?

I think that's what it comes down to. Not whether the CBC serves an important role or not. It's whether the role it serves is worth the X amount of dollars it costs. And it's now differing opinion on what 'X' should be before people say "OK, what it accomplishes is NOT worth 'X' amount of dollars".
 

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by AdRiaN
Nobody is arguing that people who watch and listen to CBC are not satisfied with it ... the problem is that not enough people are watching or listening to CBC in the first place.

However, it still provides many other benefits that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

This is what really aggravates me with this whole capitalist society (I guess that's who I can blame for this? ;) ). Something that doesn't have a quantifiable dollar value is always assumed to be worthless. Then the argument comes out that 'if it's not making money, then we should sell it off to someone who can make money with it'.

And the results are pretty much always the same when public services are privatised: higher costs for the consumers, lower quality, less accountability, and best of all, the transaction from public to private ownership is completely irreversible.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by silver1


I think that's what it comes down to. Not whether the CBC serves an important role or not. It's whether the role it serves is worth the X amount of dollars it costs? And it's now differing opinion on what 'X' should be before people say "OK, what it accomplishes is NOT worth 'X' amount of dollars".

I think, again, this IS a quantitative argument and usually one made by people who see the monetary value as being the most important factor in determining the worth of anything, whether it be the CBC or something else. How do you measure worth keeping in mind that a fundamental part of the mandate is not to be #1 in ratings but having a high approval rate among those it looks to serve according to it's mandate. You do what the CBC has done repeatedly -conduct studies to determine listener satisfaction and use that to determine your success & failure. Ratings is a system used to determine the commercial viability of your programming, not it's quality. The only reason the argument is being made is because it's being raised by competing private broadcasters and NOT by the people. That's quite telling in terms of motives.
 

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
This thread would make a lot more sense if Silver1's reply came *after* mine. heh.

It's like you're anticipating what I was about to write and came up with counter-arguments!

Damn you and your mind-reading machine!!

Time to go home now. :)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic

It's like you're anticipating what I was about to write and came up with counter-arguments!

I wouldn't call silver1's reply a counter-argument at all, rather, they're arguments that underscore YOUR point.
 

silver1

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by OTIS
I think, again, this IS a quantitative argument and usually one made by people who see the monetary value as being the most important factor in determining the worth of anything, whether it be the CBC or something else. How do you measure worth keeping in mind that a fundamental part of the mandate is not to be #1 in ratings but having a high approval rate among those it looks to serve according to it's mandate. You do what the CBC has done repeatedly -conduct studies to determine listener satisfaction and use that to determine your success & failure. Ratings is a system used to determine the commercial viability of your programming, not it's quality. The only reason the argument is being made is because it's being raised by competing private broadcasters and NOT by the people. That's quite telling in terms of motives.

But in the end there has to be a monetary comparison made. Not necessarily in terms of if it's profitable or not. But whether the money is being well spent or not.

I like the CBC and what it acomplishes. I don't mind the Gov't kicking in 60 million bucks to help it out. But if the gov't had to say kick in 4 times that amount, I might think differently. I might think the money could be used better elsewhere.

Yes I agree that the point is being raised by private entities that want a chance to make a profit with it. Greed is all about and the CBC is another chance for someone else to make some dough by changing it.

But on the flip side, I highly doubt that our elected officials who give the money to bail out the CBC aren't also thinking "at what point is the monetary cost too much"?
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Let's use the example of roads, because they are part of a publicly funded infrastructure and they do not have a quantifiable benefit in dollars. The 401 is a great highway and an essential artery of transportation in Ontario. This highway joins major population centres for both commercial and recreational purposes. A lot of investment goes into maintaining and expanding the 401 because it handles so much traffic every day.

But what if the government built a six-lane highway from, I dunno, Stratford to Owen Sound. The residents of these towns and would be very satisfied with their ability to quickly traverse central Ontario. Is that reason enough to justify spending billions of dollars and having an essentially empty highway?

At some point, the costs will outweigh the benefits, even though the benefits are not easily quantified and even though existing users are happy with the current situation.
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
However, it still provides many other benefits that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

This is what really aggravates me with this whole capitalist society (I guess that's who I can blame for this? ;) ). Something that doesn't have a quantifiable dollar value is always assumed to be worthless. Then the argument comes out that 'if it's not making money, then we should sell it off to someone who can make money with it'.

It's not about "the dollar is god, everything else is worthless" It's the fact that if an organization is NOT making a profit, that means that the preferences of the population, in general, ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF IT in the marketplace. Our collective preferences are revealed by what we are willing to spend our dollars on.

Who are you to say: "Oh, I know what's best for 'the masses', I know what they should watch."?

You're forcing people to subsidize, through their taxpaying dollars, something they would not spend money on otherwise, because you simply assume that there MUST be some "high, redeeming value" in it.

Who made you king of culture? Maybe the epitome of "truth"
and "high culture" is not soft-lefty CBC-ism, but, to take a random example, neo-Nazism.

With your logic, the fact that people are not spending money on neo-Nazi propaganda means "they don't know what's good for them". Maybe Nazism has some abstract high-culture value that is not appreciated by our "vulgar" focus on monetary realities. We should be forced to support Nazism because some bureaucrats in the government know what's best for us simpletons!

THAT'S the truly arrogant attitude - not the Conservative Party.

Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
And the results are pretty much always the same when public services are privatised: higher costs for the consumers, lower quality, less accountability, and best of all, the transaction from public to private ownership is completely irreversible.

Care to provide an example of this? It goes against all economic theory and reality.

- Deep_Groove
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
Let's use the example of roads, because they are part of a publicly funded infrastructure and they do not have a quantifiable benefit in dollars. The 401 is a great highway and an essential artery of transportation in Ontario. This highway joins major population centres for both commercial and recreational purposes. A lot of investment goes into maintaining and expanding the 401 because it handles so much traffic every day.

But what if the government built a six-lane highway from, I dunno, Stratford to Owen Sound. The residents of these towns and would be very satisfied with their ability to quickly traverse central Ontario. Is that reason enough to justify spending billions of dollars and having an essentially empty highway?

At some point, the costs will outweigh the benefits, even though the benefits are not easily quantified and even though existing users are happy with the current situation.

Wrong. Roads have a utilitarian purpose only. Their cost, rate of decay, and direct benifit can be measured and worth easily determined. Your comparison of the CBC to a highway is insulting and underscores the way you perceive it.

To provide a real example of what the CBC is, I’ll refrain from comparing it to street lamps and attempt to explain what it’s purpose is by providing a microcosmic example. The radio station I volunteer for serves a part of town that has been monstrously mis-represented in Toronto culture, and completely forgotten by commercial media outlets that claim to serve it's demographic *cough*FLOW 93*cough*. The station is undoubtedly a fundamental anchor in the community and a purveyor in the creation & cementation of a sense of community in a part of town that is perceived by most outsiders to be gang-ridden, and crime infested. Seeing this with my own eyes, I can tell you that there is NO possible way to put a dollar amount on something like the creation of "community spirit" in an area that needs all the help in can get. To me, it seems priceless. However, putting a monetary value on this IS indeed what you are asking of the CBC who does the same on a national scale, knowing fair well that national spirit is inherently vague, somewhat immeasurable, and therefore unquantifiable in terms of money.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
the CBC costs $29 per taxpayer per year....whopping

the PBS model's not feasible here in Canada - we have a tenth of the population, for one, and they're not at all comparable broadcast organizations.

Shows about opera, ballet, plays, they're not going to be in the top 20. Why shouldn't they be on an over-the-air network? If the CBC doesn't show them, who will?
We've got a "Canadian" television network that other than Tiny Talent Time writ large shows all-American content in prime time.

If you think a broadcast organization should be treated exactly like any other corporation, watch tonite's part of The Corporation (or it may be the next one) - the part on "libel chill"
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The CBC.

Originally posted by silver1
But in the end there has to be a monetary comparison made. Not necessarily in terms of if it's profitable or not. But whether the money is being well spent or not.

Sure, there has to be some, and if the concern is truly a public one, and not instigated by private entities who have obvious side motives, and not assessed within a paradigm of traditional commercial success, then I welcome it.

Originally posted by silver1
I like the CBC and what it accomplishes. I don't mind the Gov't kicking in 60 million bucks to help it out. But if the gov't had to say kick in 4 times that amount, I might think differently. I might think the money could be used better elsewhere.

It’s hard to say, I don’t want to seem like I’m pointing fingers, but if you look at spending of Canadian tax money within the private sector, you’ll probably find much more questionable money monsters whose consumption of tax revenue eclipses that of the CBC. I’d say if pressure is applied across the board in a bi-partisan equal way then I may understand looking at its finances more closely.

Originally posted by silver1
Yes I agree that the point is being raised by private entities that want a chance to make a profit with it. Greed is all about and the CBC is another chance for someone else to make some dough by changing it.

Although this may be a side motive, I don’t think the concerns of private entities are wholeheartedly entrenched within the idea that the CBC is untapped profit. There are even conservative views that don’t feel that the CBC should even be partially supporded by commercial advertisements, and go truly and totally public. I think one of the main concerns, especially coming from the Asper conglomerate, is the CBC’s content; which they calim is frequently anti-American, doesn’t present enough of a pro-finance opinion, and is entrenched solely within leftist ideology. An ironic claim coming from a newspaper who’s official editorial position is to be staunchly pro-Israel & pro business.

Originally posted by silver1
But on the flip side, I highly doubt that our elected officials who give the money to bail out the CBC aren't also thinking "at what point is the monetary cost too much"?
I do. Besides, they probably realize that it’s role in maintaining a National identity is fundamental, especially coming out of a decade where we were a few votes shy of separating. National identity has been an important theme in Canada’s strength since 1867, and various things that have cost allot of money have come out of the need to maintain a National identity. One of the first was the CNR, which connected the country and it’s vastly different regionally entrenched cultures. Our nation is so full of diverse people that it should have, sometime in it’s post confederation history, been in engulfed in a four front warfare. Surprisingly it’s hasn’t and it’s interesting to wonder why, or even go as far as conjecturing that it’s due to the various efforts in establishing a common national identity, including the CBC.
 
Last edited:

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
The station is undoubtedly a fundamental anchor in the community and a purveyor in the creation & cementation of a sense of community

Sure. For the two dozen people who listen to it.

If you REALLY think that it works to cement the WHOLE community, then why not let people who agree with that idea pay for it themselves, and those who disagree, not have to pay, i.e. privatization.

It's not that I don't understand your "argument from intangible benefits". I just disagree with it. "Community art" and "national-identity art" is, more often than not, a bunch of lame crap.

Every time I see one of those "Canadian Heritage Moments" I want to retch. It's sappy, saccharine BS. It causes me to recoil from Candian identity more than embrace it.

Why? Because the creators are simply being given government money without any real criteria or incentive for success. Whereas in the private sector, positive and negative incentives exist and what emerges is what people want to consume. If you think having lame crap is acceptable for "Canadian Identity" more power to you. And if I don't agree, I still have to pay. That's not fair.

Originally posted by kerouacdude
Shows about the greatness of Aryan art and the degeneracy of Jewish art, they're not going to be in the top 20. Why shouldn't they be on an over-the-air network?

:eek: No comment :D

Originally posted by OTIS
it’s role in maintaining a National identity is fundamental...

YES! Finally someone with the courage to come out and defend the self-evident truth of the superiority of Aryan National Identitiy! Heil Hitler!

- Deep_Groove
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
Sure. For the two dozen people who listen to it.

If you REALLY think that it works to cement the WHOLE community, then why not let people who agree with that idea pay for it themselves, and those who disagree, not have to pay, i.e. privatization.


- Deep_Groove

How about we just to cut to the chase where we confirm that you are indeed an ignorant cum-sock, and call it a day.

If this is the way you think campus community radio operates, then there's really no helping you.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top