Russia Today..... Trustworthy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PowerSlug

New Member
Hey guys, This is my second post. I heard about this place and Mick West on the JRE podcast. I came to alot of conclusions for myself that were discussed on the podcast, like for example 9/11 and building 7, prior to listening. And it was refreshing hearing a sane person explain things with a mind set similar to my own.

Forgive me if this isn't the right section for this particular question. But what do you all think about Russia Today as a reputable source of information? So far since it first came around, it seems to have ballooned around stories involving conspiracy theories. And wow, is it ever anti-everyone who isn't russia or a close ally. I also find it kinda funny how this news station completely avoids anything bad coming from the east, in particular russia of course, especially during the time putin was voted in. I haven't done alot of research yet on how the news station came about, but even Al Jazeera did a small bit on how it's state-run propaganda. If this is true, what does this say about all those conspiracy theorists who are guests on a somewhat regular basis, like alex jones and of course, max keiser who actually works directly for them? there is something odd that surrounds this news station, not sure what yet. Any thoughts?


Here is Al Jazeera's video about RT.





After doing a youtube search, seems RT has done the same thing towards Al Jazeera now. lol.
 
RT seems strongly biased towards presenting the US in a bad light. So while they sometimes have some interesting perspectives, everything they do has to be viewed through that filter. Somewhat similar to Fox News.

Not quite as bad as PressTV though.
 
RT is a wholly government owned channel - as such is can probably be completely trusted to toe the Govt line.

Many private channels might do the same too - but at least with RT you know it will never change!!
 
Forgive me if this isn't the right section for this particular question. But what do you all think about Russia Today as a reputable source of information?

Russia Today gives some Conspiracy-Believers that kind of information they want to hear, so it must be serios for them.

Russia Today is owned by the state and for shure controlled by the russian leaders. Russian MEdia in general is not really free. Jounalist critisizing the Gouvernment to much can be arrrested or even killed under unusual circumstances. For Details see this short summary from "Reporters without Borders" http://en.rsf.org/report-russia,131.html or the list of Journalists killed in Russia on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia


@Mick

You know this guy who seems to be an credible "Expert in AStronomy", don´t you? ;)

 
If I was in Russia, I would lean toward American media to get a more rounded outlook of Russia's policies and issues. In the same way, in United States, I lean more toward RT than American media (corporate media to be more accurate), to get a more rounded outlook of America's (and their corporate interest's) policies and issues.
 
Last edited:
While I can sympathise with not wanting to view most US media, why would you go to an admitted Russian Govt propaganda site for a "more rounded view" of anything other than Russian propaganda?:confused:

Why is Russian government propaganda more palatable to you than US media propaganda?
 
While I can sympathise with not wanting to view most US media, why would you go to an admitted Russian Govt propaganda site for a "more rounded view" of anything other than Russian propaganda?:confused:

Why is Russian government propaganda more palatable to you than US media propaganda?
Because they touch on things outside of the extremely limited spectrum of allowed opinion and talking points of corporate media. There is propaganda too. The trick is to watch both streams and weed out the propaganda from both sides to get a better rounded view. There is propaganda coming from both sides, but there is also truth buried in that propaganda. It's about finding that balance.
 
They may sledgehammer their points, but they do highlight real issues such as corruption in financial industry and Wall Street which warrant attention while there is a complete black out in US corporate media. Here is a segment that I just found on Wall Street corruption..



One of the top comments:
I'm a US citizen and highly approve of this report! It speaks volumes on the financial and governmental corruption that infests America.
 
Last edited:
Somewhat similar to Fox News.
That's a scary thought to me, atleast most people who watch or read Fox news know alot of it is BS. But from what I've seen so far, people follow RT alot more religiously. All you have to do is read youtube comments or comments on their website.
 
They may sledgehammer their points, but they do highlight real issues such as corruption in financial industry and Wall Street which warrant attention while there is a complete black out in US corporate media.

But Russia Today will never speak about corruption in Russia. Corruption in Russia is so much common that nobody trusts in russian Police. Thats the reason why there where so much videos from the meteor some months ago. Nearly every cardriver has a camera on his windshield - to have an evidence if a corrupt policemen try to make him guilty.

This Station is named "Russia Today" - so it should report what´s happening in "Russia today". Why they doesn´t report about their own Corruption?

I really wish that some of the Consiracy-Theorists using RT as a quality-Source would spend some time in russia. They would feel how democratic and free russia today really is. (it´s not)
 
But Russia Today will never speak about corruption in Russia. Corruption in Russia is so much common that nobody trusts in russian Police. Thats the reason why there where so much videos from the meteor some months ago. Nearly every cardriver has a camera on his windshield - to have an evidence if a corrupt policemen try to make him guilty.

This Station is named "Russia Today" - so it should report what´s happening in "Russia today". Why they doesn´t report about their own Corruption?

I really wish that some of the Consiracy-Theorists using RT as a quality-Source would spend some time in russia. They would feel how democratic and free russia today really is. (it´s not)
If I was in Russia, I would lean toward American media to get a more rounded outlook of Russia's policies and issues. In the same way, in United States, I lean more toward RT than American media (corporate media to be more accurate), to get a more rounded outlook of America's (and their corporate interest's) policies and issues.
 
Back in the day I used to listen to Radio Moscow. At first I appreciated the different slant on world news and hated the UK's beep beep beep beeps over of certain news stories. It made me very suspicious of our Gov. Like all things new they become old and you see through the politics. Like a new job, your mad keen at first but after a bit you spot the back stabbers and power players. I guess what I'm saying is RT (Russia Today) is OK if you want a different perspective on an issue but you have to be mindful of where that perspective comes from. It's like a biased tabloid news paper. It's certainly not broad sheet. Personally I prefere Al Jazera, Europe today and even Bloomburg for a different slant.
 
Back in the day I used to listen to Radio Moscow. At first I appreciated the different slant on world news and hated the UK's beep beep beep beeps over of certain news stories. It made me very suspicious of our Gov. Like all things new they become old and you see through the politics. Like a new job, your mad keen at first but after a bit you spot the back stabbers and power players. I guess what I'm saying is RT (Russia Today) is OK if you want a different perspective on an issue but you have to be mindful of where that perspective comes from. It's like a biased tabloid news paper. It's certainly not broad sheet. Personally I prefere Al Jazera, Europe today and even Bloomburg for a different slant.

Perhaps one should also add something more in the middle, like the BBC, or Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world
 
RT is a wholly government owned channel - as such is can probably be completely trusted to toe the Govt line.
So the advertisers pay the Russian Govt to advertise on there... or does RT funnel the money back to the Russian Gov or does the Russian Govt allow RT to run as a private company but 'tell it what to say'... which is the way it works?

It is rare that RT criticises Russia but it does have people on who do criticise Russia, notably the lesbian/gay laws and Pussy Riot but it does normally focus on the West's shortfalls and hypocrisy. But who in their right mind would rely on RT's word without checking it out for themselves... about the same percentage of people who would rely on Foxy News without getting a second opinion.

The BBC is hardly impartial in the main, although it does occasionally put out some hard hitting, unbiased investigations.
 
Last edited:
So the advertisers pay the Russian Govt to advertise on there... or does RT funnel the money back to the Russian Gov or does the Russian Govt allow RT to run as a private company but 'tell it what to say'... which is the way it works?

As I understand it, RT is a part of an autonomous non-profit organization (ANO) called TV Novosti; it receives most of its funding (300 million dollars in 2012) straight from the Russian Federal Budget. ANOs provide services in fields like culture, education, law, etc., are allowed to generate income to achieve their goals (so RT holds onto its ad revenue), and have some degree of autonomy from their founders. What the last part means is that, on paper at least, RT has no special obligation to follow what its founders (such as RIA Novosti) say.
RT does take its cues directly from Moscow for sensitive issues, a good example being during the Ossetian War, some of its founding members, such as the current editor-in-chief, Margarite Simonyam, are definitely Putin loyalists, and there are numerous instances of journalists being punished for trying to cover the wrong topics. However, there's also a fair amount of self-censorship. Many journalists at RT are recruited straight out of college, so there's a lot of pressure to impress the management in order to either rise in the ranks or stay onboard long enough to transfer to other international networks.

Federal Law on Non-Profits (see Article 10 for ANOs):
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-REF(2013)037-e (Article 10)
CJR article on RT:
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all
 
As I understand it, RT is a part of an autonomous non-profit organization (ANO) called TV Novosti; it receives most of its funding (300 million dollars in 2012) straight from the Russian Federal Budget. ANOs provide services in fields like culture, education, law, etc., are allowed to generate income to achieve their goals (so RT holds onto its ad revenue), and have some degree of autonomy from their founders. What the last part means is that, on paper at least, RT has no special obligation to follow what its founders (such as RIA Novosti) say.
RT does take its cues directly from Moscow for sensitive issues, a good example being during the Ossetian War, some of its founding members, such as the current editor-in-chief, Margarite Simonyam, are definitely Putin loyalists, and there are numerous instances of journalists being punished for trying to cover the wrong topics. However, there's also a fair amount of self-censorship. Many journalists at RT are recruited straight out of college, so there's a lot of pressure to impress the management in order to either rise in the ranks or stay onboard long enough to transfer to other international networks.

Federal Law on Non-Profits (see Article 10 for ANOs):
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-REF(2013)037-e (Article 10)
CJR article on RT:
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all
Thanks. That sounds about the sum of it. But having said that, a reasonable person would allow an element of propaganda in assessing output and use that to make an informed decision when assessing the equally propagandised output from western TV.
 
Thanks. That sounds about the sum of it. But having said that, a reasonable person would allow an element of propaganda in assessing output and use that to make an informed decision when assessing the equally propagandised output from western TV.

That was a nice summation of the RT situation.

Perhaps you could provide one that shows just as clearly how "western TV" is "equally propgandised"?

It should be easy enough for the BBC for example....
 
That was a nice summation of the RT situation.

Perhaps you could provide one that shows just as clearly how "western TV" is "equally propgandised"?

It should be easy enough for the BBC for example....

As I said, the BBC and PBS do some excellent in depth documentaries from time to time. However they do tend to give precedence to 'official lines', which is understandable but when you consider 'official lines' often are propagandised, the BBC as a whole cannot be completely unpropagandised.

i.e.
http://worldnewscurator.com/2013/02/25/propaganda-wars-bbc-radio-blocked-in-china/
But globalised marketplaces and the explosion of communications technology has opened up vast new opportunities for state news media – which does not suffer from the same funding problems which the internet has caused for independently owned media. The BBC (UK), VOA (USA), Al Jazeera (Qatar), Press TV (Iran), RT (Russia), and others have massively expanded their foreign audiences over the past couple of decades, through both cable / satellite television and the internet. If you look at the type of content broadcast on these services, it is clear that the editorial line is very different for each one, and for each one it is also remarkably similar to the general views of their respective governments.
Content from External Source
and
http://bpc-world.co.uk/2011/05/bad-news-from-the-bbc-part-1-replete-with-imbalance-and-distortion/
One of the main headlines on the BBC news homepage earlier this month read, ‘Violence erupts at Israel borders’. Israeli soldiers had shot dead at least 12 protesters and injured dozens more. BBC ‘impartiality’ decreed that the brutal killings were presented almost as an act of nature, a volcanic eruption that simply happened.

Clicking on the link did at least bring up a more accurate headline: ‘Israeli forces open fire at Palestinian protesters’. But the brutality was sanitised, with no details of the many victims. The Israeli viewpoint was prominent with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that he ‘hoped’ that ‘calm and quiet will quickly return, but let nobody be mistaken, we are determined to defend our borders and sovereignty’.

Somehow a ‘neutral’ BBC perspective dictated that the lead image illustrating the story was of young Palestinian men throwing rocks in ‘clashes’ with fully armed soldiers from the Israeli Defence Forces.

The Palestinians had been taking part in annual protests on Nakba (‘Catastrophe’) day which, as the BBC put it, ‘marks the moment when 100,000s of Palestinians lost their homes’ on the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Again, the BBC’s sanitised version of ’lost their homes’ buries awkward history, as though homes had simply been repossessed when families fell behind on their mortgage payments. In reality, more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, had been uprooted and 531 village destroyed (Ilan Pappe, ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’, Oneworld, 2006).

After complaints from us, and perhaps realising the newspeak was just too much to swallow, the BBC tweaked the sentence the following day to read:

‘Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced out of their homes in fighting after its creation.’
Content from External Source
Operation Mockingbird is a good example of western media propaganda.

Also

The Voice of America has been a part of several agencies:

From 1942 to 1945, it was part of the Office of War Information, and then from 1945 to 1953 as a function of the State Department. The VOA was placed under the U.S. Information Agency in 1953. When the USIA was abolished in 1999, the VOA was placed under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which is an autonomous U.S. government agency, with bipartisan membership. The Secretary of State has a seat on the BBG.[6] The BBG was established as a buffer to protect VOA and other U.S.-sponsored, non-military, international broadcasters from political interference. It replaced the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB) that oversaw the funding and operation of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a branch of VOA.[7]

Even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government's Office of the Coordinator of Information began providing war news and commentary to the commercial American shortwave radio stations for use on a voluntary basis.[15] Direct programming began shortly after the United States' entry into the war. The first live broadcast to Germany, called Stimmen aus Amerika ("Voices from America") took place on Feb 1, 1942. It was introduced by "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and included the pledge: "Today, and every day from now on, we will be with you from America to talk about the war. . . . The news may be good or bad for us – We will always tell you the truth."[16]
Content from External Source
But does it tell the 'truth'? All media say they tell the 'truth' and not one says, 'We are only going to tell you what we want you to know'

I suggest that anyone who wants to know the truth, 'has their work cut out' and needs to utilise a whole range of news sources to discern what is actually the 'truth'.
 
Last edited:
All news sources "spin" the info one way or another - it is impossible to be perfectly objective.

So I was more after the evidence of systemic political interference than individual examples.

For example the BBC has a charter that REQUIRES there be no political interference - however one might find instances of subtle pressure being applied?? And example might be the breaking story that the BBC Trust is under some threat due to redundancy payment disputes, and also the recent sex scandal involving Jimmy Saville, subsequent management turnover, and the possibility of the licence fee becoming non-compulsory.

contrast this with RT's admitted policy that criticism of the Russian PM and President is not allowed (behind a paywall but you can get 7 days free) and even Russians sometimes acknowledge that it is not so much passively "following the official line" as being an active propaganda outlet and its expenditure is at eth expense of even the pretense of a free press -

Was Andrey Illarionov, the former advisor to Vladimir Putin and today an oppositionist, right when in 2007 he called Russia Today “the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world”?
Content from External Source
(source)

now there are certainly thoroughly biased news media in the west that are little more than active propaganda mouthpieces for some political faction or other - I'm not going to deny it because I believe it is true. However IMO (and AFAIK) none of the state broadcasters come close to being anything like RT.com.
 
the BBC has a charter that REQUIRES there be no political interference
The D-notice was applied immediately Chernobyl's nuclear accident plume made for the UK, and nothing was spoken or written about the lethal ash cloud for at least three weeks, while it passed over our heads. If that was what it did - don't ask me, for I couldn't possibly know. (I don't know if anyone's checked whether Brits glow in the dark).

So that "charter" wasn't worth that much, was it?
 
Last edited:
Are you saying the plume did not hit the UK as it did albeit slightly dispersed. It hit within the first week.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiat...RadiationTopics/RadiationIncidents/Chernobyl/
(Sorry I can't quote but go down to the paragraph about the UK)

IIRC it was greatly played down with some sources claiming the dust was blown from the Sahara. The fallout buggered up sheep farms in the Lake District and Scotland for years.
 
I know you guys are not after individual examples of western proaganda but this is a classic example.



Although they (western news) didn't say this guy was squashed the inference was there. My wife, for example, was convinced he was squashed as it was never clarified at the time....and as far as I'm aware never has.
 
The KGB had a program of encouraging conspiracy theories as a means to destabilise America from within.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive#Disinformation_campaign_against_the_United_States
One can easily see the logic of this being continued, especially through internet forums where constant false flag and conspiracy accusations aid those with interests against America. It doesn't matter that they are without substance, they serve the purpose of stirring up people, and there are people just eager and waiting for some cause to take up to express their discontent with the government.
RT is definitely aimed at this audience.


ETA informative ATS thread...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread963050/pg1
 
Yes. Funny how it attacked the sheep (and cows) and missed everything else. We were lucky, weren't we?

It was about then that a desire to leave the UK grew within me.


And we have Fox for balance.o_O
Don't forget about the Welsh sheep as well. Amazing how we humans are so resistant to radiation and the the sheep etc are not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17472698

Then there is Dounreay pumping irradiated material out to sea and it washing back up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2547981.stm
The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) is being sued over the alleged contamination of Sandside Beach, in Caithness.

The action alleges that the operators of the Dounreay nuclear plant failed to perform their statutory duty to detect and remove all the pollution which has washed up on the public beach.




Twenty one particles have been found on the beach
The UKAEA monitors the sands on a monthly basis.
But beach owner Geoffrey Minter, who is raising the court action, said it was not enough.

He claimed that 21 particles found to date represent less than one per cent of the contamination present.

The case will be heard at the Court of Session on 11 February next year.

Dounreay said it would be making a vigorous response to the issues raised by the petition.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know you guys are not after individual examples of western proaganda but this is a classic example.



Although they (western news) didn't say this guy was squashed the inference was there. My wife, for example, was convinced he was squashed as it was never clarified at the time....and as far as I'm aware never has.

Good point about the propaganda of just showing misleading clips but we also cannot forget that hundreds died in the square and it is still 'illegal' to talk about or commemorate it in China.

But having said that China is changing rapidly.
 
Last edited:
I know you guys are not after individual examples of western proaganda but this is a classic example.



Although they (western news) didn't say this guy was squashed the inference was there. My wife, for example, was convinced he was squashed as it was never clarified at the time....and as far as I'm aware never has.


At the time it was absolutely clarified. Every time that clip was shown they also showed the other guys come up and lead him away. Here's an example from the time:

"Tank Man" starts at 2:10
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/52086829#52086829

It's only in the years since that it has been reduced more to just an iconic still image.
 
At the time it was absolutely clarified. Every time that clip was shown they also showed the other guys come up and lead him away. Here's an example from the time:

"Tank Man" starts at 2:10
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/52086829#52086829

It's only in the years since that it has been reduced more to just an iconic still image.

Yep, just checked and got a different version http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8047516.stm conforming your post but from the BBC. Goes to show how powerful repeating that image is because I don't remeber "Tank Man" getting away. I only ever remember the short edited version which, as I said earlier, leads to the impression the guy was squished.
 
What happened to him? From what I understand he was disappeared into a re-education camp. Quite frankly I think I would prefer squishing by tank to a re-education camp.
 
Then there is Dounreay
You haven't mentioned Seascale. Or was it Sellafield? Or WIndscale? You get funny when you get old. Different words appear to mean the same thing.

Certain wind currents take the dusts of a sea's edge and carry them aloft. In valleys, eddies and vortices form which propel the air, whether aloft or at ground level. At the centre of any vortex is a place of low pressure, with wind speeds almost at rest. In such conditions small yet massive particles have a tendency to settle. The net result is that, over time, isolated regions of the countryside will experience a higher than normal level of "background radiation".

You could picnic there. But, either in Lancashire, Cumbria, Northern Ireland, the southwest coast of Scotland, North Wales, or Anglesey, I'd recommend a radiation meter. All these nuclear plants leak. Not necessarily on a regular basis, they don't. But there will always be another accident just as soon as standards drop. And they occasionally do. It's human nature.

Anyway, the Irish Sea is hot. Not so that it would kill you to swim in it, but more insidiously, by wind transport and your desire for a sheltered picnic.
 
Last edited:
If anyone has anything of a parity for indepth debate on Syria from Fox or CNN, I would like to see it. I haven't seen anything like it from MSM. It's all Assad guilty, U.S ready to strike in punishment... along the lines put forward by Mark Levine from Washington. The other side needs stating as well. Even with all the MSM brainwashing, people are not swallowing the propaganda... and about time too.

 
Last edited:
You haven't mentioned Seascale. Or was it Sellafield? Or WIndscale?

Anyway, the Irish Sea is hot. Not so that it would kill you to swim in it, but more insidiously, by wind transport and your desire for a sheltered picnic.

Surprisingly little* talk of Fukushima this last week (on the planet), given that it is leaking a whopping 15 times more Tritium today then it was... the day before yesterday. Yet the world press talks of Japan's offence at a French cartoon?

*No coverage... A bit like that benign Russian cloud that annoyed sheep.

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/09/...e-tank-area-1-5-times-much-as-one-day-before/
 
Last edited:
That was a nice summation of the RT situation.

Perhaps you could provide one that shows just as clearly how "western TV" is "equally propgandised"?

It should be easy enough for the BBC for example....
But is that a useful comparison? What is the purpose of RT, was it a propaganda initiative or a reaction to foreign news media? Maybe it's more relevant to compare with how the Western media report on Russia, to see whether there is any bias to counter.

My daily newspaper De Standaard (one of the two Flemish "quality" newspapers according to the EJC http://ejc.net/media_landscapes/belgium), has probably published enough articles about Pussy Riot to fill a weekend edition. In contrast, when in Ingushetia a suicide bomber killed seven policemen at the funeral of their collegue who was shot by terrorists days before, the article was smaller than the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon. Every election is by definition rigged, and articles on Russian elections are really reporting the accusations by the opposition. Every journalist who dies is assumed to have been killed by Putin's men (I wonder why an enemy of Putin would bother to give any interviews, shooting the journalist would be much more effective)...

Same is true for news from China: three to four times a month there will be a big story from "our correspondent in China". About how they are hacking our computers, how they are taught in school to hate the Japanese; when a baby is killed it's always the culture and the government policy that is responsible. Last month there was a two page story about a woman who had attempted suicide, clearly it was the slave labor in the iphone factory that drove her to it. Elections are rigged, when a politician is arrested for corruption, you get one line about the actual accusations, the rest is about political intrigue, you know, the real reason for the arrest...

Femen were brave women fighting against oppression when they were active in the East, now they protest in Western Europe they are dumb, naive, manipulated bitches. I haven't seen much uproar or protest by western politicians about the French putting them on trial for their protest in Notre Dame.
 
Just another example how RT is trying to undermine the US by poisoning the minds of CTs who then become the real false-flaggers from inside their own country.
 
Just another example how RT is trying to undermine the US by poisoning the minds of CTs who then become the real false-flaggers from inside their own country.


I hate to be derogatory but this Daniel Bushell's accent is grating and somewhat chav. Perhaps that's his audience demographic. Oh well! At least he didn't pronounce TH as F. And who's this 87% he talks about? 87% of conspiracy theorists?
 
You haven't mentioned Seascale. Or was it Sellafield? Or WIndscale? You get funny when you get old. Different words appear to mean the same thing.

Certain wind currents take the dusts of a sea's edge and carry them aloft. In valleys, eddies and vortices form which propel the air, whether aloft or at ground level. At the centre of any vortex is a place of low pressure, with wind speeds almost at rest. In such conditions small yet massive particles have a tendency to settle. The net result is that, over time, isolated regions of the countryside will experience a higher than normal level of "background radiation".

You could picnic there. But, either in Lancashire, Cumbria, Northern Ireland, the southwest coast of Scotland, North Wales, or Anglesey, I'd recommend a radiation meter. All these nuclear plants leak. Not necessarily on a regular basis, they don't. But there will always be another accident just as soon as standards drop. And they occasionally do. It's human nature.

Anyway, the Irish Sea is hot. Not so that it would kill you to swim in it, but more insidiously, by wind transport and your desire for a sheltered picnic.
But we all know who was responsible for that, Richard bloody Burton!!

(at 5:32)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top