Why didn't someone tell me to look up Jack's kilt?

oh, that's nothing Frank, the guy also writes fan fiction (under the nom de plume of Jack1488, of course).
http://www.orderofwhiteknights.org/nwr_archive/twr_issue27.html

It's a pity his old nom de plume of JSP1488 on OLO got banned eh?
You only have take a look at JSP1488's (and the obvious sock puppets) comments to see where Jack lives in his head.

Not to worry, you can see him here at:
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jsp1488

I think your ears do stick out Jack, no matter what you say.

I can't believe I had you pegged so early either:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1075#19306

But there you go, I guess I am a product of a 'dummed down edukation systum' after all.
LOLDONGS, you clown.

Thanks for the heads-up, Bugsy.

I missed that sock puppet - so obvious in retrospect.

Loved the Yahoo profile :) He's bald as well as short!

Homophobe, racist, short, nasty, professes to be atheist. Now who does he remind me of? Except for the kilt...

Does he have a thing about gypsies and Jews as well?

I know - our Jack is the ghost of Enoch Powell!

"Turning into a "dumbed-down syndromer" Jack?"

ROFL that made my day, Bugsy!

Frank, Wikipedia can be edited and corrected by other users, the BBC can't. As for the BBC's 'reliability', it is practically an organ of the Labour Party.
Who opened up the loony bin? Bugsy's back offering me a vegetable (a turnip). Maybe that's a representation of himself.
CJ ceased 'engaging ', if that's what he called it, after I outed him as a Green Enthusiastic (trying ever-so-hard) Heterosexual.
Yes Bugsy, you and CJ, dumb and dumber. Next time you meet, turn around and tell him so.
Celivia, why have you joined with the cretins? Won't no-one let you play with them? And "ROFL"? Sounds like you're throwing up.

Jack

Yes, Wikipedia can be edited and 'corrected' by other users, the BBC can't (although there are lots of BBC forums for viewers and listeners).

But it remains the case that Wiki contributions remain anonymous and 'corrections' (and often 'corrections' of 'corrections') imply that various drafts are unreliable. That, in itself, makes reliance on Wiki highly problematic.

The BBC pages I referred you to are transcripts of live broadcasts by an eminent scholar. What is there to correct after the typos have been picked up? The transcripts, as I've said, are now published in book form.

As for the BBC's being "practically an organ of the Labour Party", is it practically an organ of the Conservative Party when they are in power too? The BBC has been the foremost broadcasting organ in the world since its origins in 1922 (radio of course and with Reith was an early boss of the Corporation). It's been the standard setter in TV since 1936.

The BBC World Service is rightly regarded as the authoritative source of news and current affairs in many nations around the world. Wiki is very helpful, but hardly bears comparison with the BBC.

However, nobody's perfect. The London Times back in June reported an inquiry into BBC bias and concluded that:

"although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the corporation was partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion". The BBC had allowed itself to be hijacked by Bob Geldof, Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries through the Make Poverty History campaign.

Hardly Party political bias - 'fair and impartial' was the finding - and certainly not constituting 'an organ of the Labour Party'.

On my frequent visits to the UK (another next year) I wouldn't miss the BBC. It's fantastic.