French censored answer to Google Earth.
in [Europe]
|
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 26 Jul 2006 13:13 Aprs mre rflexion, Mxsmanic a crit : > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> Yes. But are those photographs with wristwatch precision readily >> available ? > > No, but submetre precision is readily available. Two questions: 1/ Is submetre precision available on Google Earth (as this was the subject of your discussion) ? 2/ Have you lokked upon small French towns (or not so small ones) on Google Earth and Goportail. and one remark : I strongly doubt that ultra-high resolution Google pics are satellite ones. >> Last thing, Mxsmanic : please STOP to consider that I stand for >> everything French. I do not. I'm not vexed by your comments on the >> so-called mediocrity of anything French. Please get it! > > Then why are you going to this trouble to tell me so? Because I note your tendancy to push on every subject like this as if you are in need of denigrating when you answer me. Buy the way, I'd like to know your answer about free press. How exactly can you label newspapers that rely only on advertising as free press ? -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 26 Jul 2006 13:18 Mxsmanic a pens trs fort : > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> Can you explain how the free press "have been" hindered by the military >> _specifically in France_ ? In your opinion, when was the press actually >> free and when did the military begin to interfere ? > > I thought my comments on France didn't vex you. I'm absolutely not vexed by this specific comment on France. I'd just like to go further in the argument, and since I am interested in the problems of the press, we may get somewhere. > As far as I know, the press has never been free in France. You said that it has been hindered by the military. Can you be more specific ? You wrote also that the French were scared by a free press, referring to those newspapers that ar given away for free. How exactly do you consider them as "free press" ? -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 26 Jul 2006 13:19 barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk a mis l'ide suivante : > In article <4p7fc2d0jds2iq8vftm2luiva1ro9t6mv9(a)4ax.com>, > mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote: > >> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> >> *Date:* Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:58:42 +0200 >> >> Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: >> >>> Can you explain how the free press "have been" hindered by the >>> military _specifically in France_ ? In your opinion, when was the >>> press actually free and when did the military begin to interfere ? >> >> I thought my comments on France didn't vex you. >> >> As far as I know, the press has never been free in France. > > How do you define 'free' in this context? He wrote that it had no relation to the cost (or absence thereof). I'm too lazy to dig up the Message-ID, but he did write it, so I infer that by "free" he means "freedom of expression". -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: JohnT on 26 Jul 2006 13:38 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4p7fc2d0jds2iq8vftm2luiva1ro9t6mv9(a)4ax.com... > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> Can you explain how the free press "have been" hindered by the military >> _specifically in France_ ? In your opinion, when was the press actually >> free and when did the military begin to interfere ? > > I thought my comments on France didn't vex you. > > As far as I know, the press has never been free in France. Your knowledge of this subject is equalled only by your knowledge of other subjects about which you frequently misinform us. JohnT
From: barney2 on 26 Jul 2006 14:09
In article <mn.d4877d670a24b99b.57680(a)lesptt.net>, stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net (Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote: > *From:* Stanislas de Kertanguy <stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net> > *Date:* Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:19:47 +0200 > > barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk a mis l'ide suivante : > > In article <4p7fc2d0jds2iq8vftm2luiva1ro9t6mv9(a)4ax.com>, > > mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote: > > > >> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> > >> *Date:* Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:58:42 +0200 > >> > >> Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> > >>> Can you explain how the free press "have been" hindered by the > >>> military _specifically in France_ ? In your opinion, when was the > >>> press actually free and when did the military begin to interfere ? > >> > >> I thought my comments on France didn't vex you. > >> > >> As far as I know, the press has never been free in France. > > > > How do you define 'free' in this context? > > He wrote that it had no relation to the cost (or absence thereof). I'm > too lazy to dig up the Message-ID, but he did write it, so I infer that > by "free" he means "freedom of expression". Quite - but I'm waiting for him to expand on this. There's a middle ground between total press freedom and total state control of the media, and virtually all countries fall into this. But I don't think Mixi likes grey areas! |