Discussion:
BBC axe Survivors
(too old to reply)
tnm-collectables
2010-04-13 15:30:39 UTC
Permalink
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Gill Smith
2010-04-13 15:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
any 'survivors'?

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
m***@googlemail.com
2010-04-13 17:40:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT), tnm-collectables
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about!
We'll never know for sure, but going off what we saw it's a reasonable
bet that a bunch of government types tried to develop a deadly virus
as a bioweapon (possibly targetted specifically at the racial type of
their enemies), someone went whoopsie-daisy with a test tube and it
got out of the controlled lab environment, government types tried to
contain it as best they could while they got themselves and the
"important people" to some quarantine island, at which point the virus
finally managed to get into the general population. Cue series 1,
episode 1.

At a guess. :)
AlfyDoor
2010-04-13 17:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@googlemail.com
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT), tnm-collectables
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about!
We'll never know for sure, but going off what we saw it's a reasonable
bet that a bunch of government types tried to develop a deadly virus
as a bioweapon (possibly targetted specifically at the racial type of
their enemies), someone went whoopsie-daisy with a test tube and it
got out of the controlled lab environment, government types tried to
contain it as best they could while they got themselves and the
"important people" to some quarantine island, at which point the virus
finally managed to get into the general population. Cue series 1,
episode 1.
At a guess. :)
Mostly probably right, but you may be mixing up the original series with the
remake/re-imagining.

The original saw the Asian guy drop the test-tube. These boffins were
apparently on the verge of a cure for the common cold or similar when it all
went tits-up.

Not particularly surprised at it being canned, but for the annoying habit of
ending a series on a semi-cliffhanger when you don't know if you're getting
another series (Primeval too), or perhaps the idea is to try to force
commissioners into it. Obviously doesn't work. Survivors could have been
pretty much rounded up in the few minutes after Abby and Peter's reunion,
possibly with Tom being killed off after a kind of redemption of himself.
AlfyDoor
2010-04-13 17:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlfyDoor
Post by m***@googlemail.com
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT), tnm-collectables
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about!
We'll never know for sure, but going off what we saw it's a reasonable
bet that a bunch of government types tried to develop a deadly virus
as a bioweapon (possibly targetted specifically at the racial type of
their enemies), someone went whoopsie-daisy with a test tube and it
got out of the controlled lab environment, government types tried to
contain it as best they could while they got themselves and the
"important people" to some quarantine island, at which point the virus
finally managed to get into the general population. Cue series 1,
episode 1.
At a guess. :)
Mostly probably right, but you may be mixing up the original series with
the remake/re-imagining.
The original saw the Asian guy drop the test-tube. These boffins were
apparently on the verge of a cure for the common cold or similar when it
all went tits-up.
Not particularly surprised at it being canned, but for the annoying habit
of ending a series on a semi-cliffhanger when you don't know if you're
getting another series (Primeval too), or perhaps the idea is to try to
force commissioners into it. Obviously doesn't work. Survivors could have
been pretty much rounded up in the few minutes after Abby and Peter's
reunion, possibly with Tom being killed off after a kind of redemption of
himself.
And how many folks were (like me) strung along with the thought that they
were going to go with the ending of Terry's novelisation and have Peter
shoot Abby?!
The Other Mike
2010-04-13 22:25:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:58:29 +0100, "AlfyDoor"
Post by AlfyDoor
And how many folks were (like me) strung along with the thought that they
were going to go with the ending of Terry's novelisation and have Peter
shoot Abby?!
No point in me watching the original now is there.


--
AlfyDoor
2010-04-14 00:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:58:29 +0100, "AlfyDoor"
Post by AlfyDoor
And how many folks were (like me) strung along with the thought that they
were going to go with the ending of Terry's novelisation and have Peter
shoot Abby?!
No point in me watching the original now is there.
--
Well, the original tv series doesn't go that way. Abby isn't even in it
after the first series.
hognoxious
2010-04-14 10:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:58:29 +0100, "AlfyDoor"
Post by AlfyDoor
And how many folks were (like me) strung along with the thought that they
were going to go with the ending of Terry's novelisation and have Peter
shoot Abby?!
No point in me watching the original now is there.
--
Well, the original tv series doesn't go that way.  Abby isn't even in it
after the first series.
So there's no point watching it *now*.
AlfyDoor
2010-04-14 10:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:58:29 +0100, "AlfyDoor"
Post by AlfyDoor
And how many folks were (like me) strung along with the thought that they
were going to go with the ending of Terry's novelisation and have Peter
shoot Abby?!
No point in me watching the original now is there.
--
Well, the original tv series doesn't go that way. Abby isn't even in it
after the first series.
Post by The Other Mike
So there's no point watching it *now*.
It's 35 years old. If you hadn't gotten round to it by now...

What's the statute on spoilers anyway?
brykins
2010-04-14 22:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlfyDoor
And how many folks were (like me) strung along with the
thought that they were going to go with the ending of
Terry's novelisation and have Peter shoot Abby?!
And then going on to basically rule Wales?
--
brykins
john smith
2010-04-13 18:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlfyDoor
Post by m***@googlemail.com
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT), tnm-collectables
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about!
We'll never know for sure, but going off what we saw it's a reasonable
bet that a bunch of government types tried to develop a deadly virus
as a bioweapon (possibly targetted specifically at the racial type of
their enemies), someone went whoopsie-daisy with a test tube and it
got out of the controlled lab environment, government types tried to
contain it as best they could while they got themselves and the
"important people" to some quarantine island, at which point the virus
finally managed to get into the general population. Cue series 1,
episode 1.
At a guess. :)
Mostly probably right, but you may be mixing up the original series with
the remake/re-imagining.
The original saw the Asian guy drop the test-tube. These boffins were
apparently on the verge of a cure for the common cold or similar when it
all went tits-up.
Not particularly surprised at it being canned, but for the annoying habit
of ending a series on a semi-cliffhanger when you don't know if you're
getting another series (Primeval too), or perhaps the idea is to try to
force commissioners into it. Obviously doesn't work. Survivors could have
been pretty much rounded up in the few minutes after Abby and Peter's
reunion, possibly with Tom being killed off after a kind of redemption of
himself.
Not surprised it's been cancelled as it was just... well... rubbish. It
might have been barely watchable if it'd had zombies in it...

(I hear they're adapting "The Walking Dead" comic as a US TV series, so that
might be okay. But only if it's on HBO or some other subscription channel
and it's *gory as all fuck*. We don't need no sanitised blood-free zombie
crap...)
AlfyDoor
2010-04-13 18:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
Post by AlfyDoor
Post by m***@googlemail.com
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT), tnm-collectables
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about!
We'll never know for sure, but going off what we saw it's a reasonable
bet that a bunch of government types tried to develop a deadly virus
as a bioweapon (possibly targetted specifically at the racial type of
their enemies), someone went whoopsie-daisy with a test tube and it
got out of the controlled lab environment, government types tried to
contain it as best they could while they got themselves and the
"important people" to some quarantine island, at which point the virus
finally managed to get into the general population. Cue series 1,
episode 1.
At a guess. :)
Mostly probably right, but you may be mixing up the original series with
the remake/re-imagining.
The original saw the Asian guy drop the test-tube. These boffins were
apparently on the verge of a cure for the common cold or similar when it
all went tits-up.
Not particularly surprised at it being canned, but for the annoying habit
of ending a series on a semi-cliffhanger when you don't know if you're
getting another series (Primeval too), or perhaps the idea is to try to
force commissioners into it. Obviously doesn't work. Survivors could have
been pretty much rounded up in the few minutes after Abby and Peter's
reunion, possibly with Tom being killed off after a kind of redemption of
himself.
Not surprised it's been cancelled as it was just... well... rubbish. It
might have been barely watchable if it'd had zombies in it...
I thought it was generally okay really. Not too bothered about being
faithful or unfaithful to the original since that was hardly a classic
anyway. See it for itself and it had decent stories, decent characters,
decent cast, and was mostly exciting and interesting enough to make me keep
watching.

Sure, plenty there to nitpick about - everyone was far too clean and
cultured, survival seemed a piece of cake considering the practical
difficulties a genuine situation would have thrown up, and they seemed happy
enough to wander into major cities that should have been infested with dead
bodies lying about.

Maybe I'm too easily pleased. Good, exciting/interesting stories that don't
stretch credibility toooo far, good writing, decent cast and production and
I'm fine.
john smith
2010-04-14 00:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlfyDoor
Post by john smith
Post by AlfyDoor
Post by m***@googlemail.com
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT), tnm-collectables
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about!
We'll never know for sure, but going off what we saw it's a reasonable
bet that a bunch of government types tried to develop a deadly virus
as a bioweapon (possibly targetted specifically at the racial type of
their enemies), someone went whoopsie-daisy with a test tube and it
got out of the controlled lab environment, government types tried to
contain it as best they could while they got themselves and the
"important people" to some quarantine island, at which point the virus
finally managed to get into the general population. Cue series 1,
episode 1.
At a guess. :)
Mostly probably right, but you may be mixing up the original series with
the remake/re-imagining.
The original saw the Asian guy drop the test-tube. These boffins were
apparently on the verge of a cure for the common cold or similar when it
all went tits-up.
Not particularly surprised at it being canned, but for the annoying habit
of ending a series on a semi-cliffhanger when you don't know if you're
getting another series (Primeval too), or perhaps the idea is to try to
force commissioners into it. Obviously doesn't work. Survivors could have
been pretty much rounded up in the few minutes after Abby and Peter's
reunion, possibly with Tom being killed off after a kind of redemption of
himself.
Not surprised it's been cancelled as it was just... well... rubbish. It
might have been barely watchable if it'd had zombies in it...
I thought it was generally okay really. Not too bothered about being
faithful or unfaithful to the original since that was hardly a classic
anyway. See it for itself and it had decent stories, decent characters,
decent cast, and was mostly exciting and interesting enough to make me
keep watching.
Sure, plenty there to nitpick about - everyone was far too clean and
cultured, survival seemed a piece of cake considering the practical
difficulties a genuine situation would have thrown up, and they seemed
happy enough to wander into major cities that should have been infested
with dead bodies lying about.
That was my major problem with it, to be honest. (Well, apart from the
drippy 2D characters.) It was all just too clean and easy. No
corpse-strewn streets... no filth and decay and rampant disease... no packs
of feral dogs (or, more likely, cats!)... no real sense of *threat*. And in
a post-apocalyptic survivalist series *called* "Survivors"... Nah, even
though I watched the whole thing, it never really did it for me... I'm
pretty pissed off it's disappeared on a cliffhanger, though, and with so
many hanging plot threads...

Probably coz of viewers like me, come to think of it! ;-)
Post by AlfyDoor
Maybe I'm too easily pleased. Good, exciting/interesting stories that
don't stretch credibility toooo far, good writing, decent cast and
production and I'm fine.
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-15 09:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by john smith
Post by AlfyDoor
Sure, plenty there to nitpick about - everyone was far too clean and
cultured, survival seemed a piece of cake considering the practical
difficulties a genuine situation would have thrown up, and they seemed
happy enough to wander into major cities that should have been infested
with dead bodies lying about.
That was my major problem with it, to be honest. (Well, apart from the
drippy 2D characters.) It was all just too clean and easy. No
corpse-strewn streets... no filth and decay and rampant disease... no packs
of feral dogs (or, more likely, cats!)... no real sense of *threat*. And in
a post-apocalyptic survivalist series *called* "Survivors"... Nah, even
though I watched the whole thing, it never really did it for me... I'm
pretty pissed off it's disappeared on a cliffhanger, though, and with so
many hanging plot threads...
Yes but in that respect it was cheap and cheerful - easy to make, the
outside shots of Brum with a few bits of litter , the CGI of spaghetti
junction empty couldn't have cost much. They can't say the lavish sets
and production cost too much!
Legend-11
2010-04-13 19:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
That's a piss off. I was really enjoying it.
--
Legend-11.
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence" - Leonard
'Bones' McCoy, Star Trek (2009).
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-13 22:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying but we
all liked it and enjoyed watching it.

So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage Ashes
to Ashes!

Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching any
of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch and it
gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I just don't
get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
J G Miller
2010-04-13 22:46:14 UTC
Permalink
I just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Actually, it is all about jobs for who is in fashion and favor as opposed
to those who have fallen out of fashion and favor.
Martin
2010-04-13 22:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
I just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Actually, it is all about jobs for who is in fashion and favor as opposed
to those who have fallen out of fashion and favor.
I'd guess the money is being spent on new UK TV drama as requested?
--
Martin
J G Miller
2010-04-13 23:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
I'd guess the money is being spent on new UK TV drama as requested?
Yes, but starring the next set of well "connected" people who have
come to the favor of those who decide these things.
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-15 09:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Post by J G Miller
I just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Actually, it is all about jobs for who is in fashion and favor as opposed
to those who have fallen out of fashion and favor.
I'd guess the money is being spent on new UK TV drama as requested?
Requested by who? What drama? they'll make a series , hype it up get us
to watch then cancel it!
Martin
2010-04-15 09:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Martin
Post by J G Miller
I just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Actually, it is all about jobs for who is in fashion and favor as opposed
to those who have fallen out of fashion and favor.
I'd guess the money is being spent on new UK TV drama as requested?
Requested by who?
Politicians, viewers, and the BBC Trust?
Post by Sofa - Spud
What drama? they'll make a series , hype it up get us
to watch then cancel it!
Haven't you noticed the increase in new UK drama.
--
Martin
AC
2010-04-14 11:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
I just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Actually, it is all about jobs for who is in fashion and favor as opposed
to those who have fallen out of fashion and favor.
Nothing to do with the BBC. Its the was business works in the UK, and why
British business is a rank joke. People get promoted because of length of
service and / or who they know. The best people tend to lurk at the bottom
of the pile.

Not sure why any one thinks the BBC should be any different.

AC
Fred X
2010-04-14 13:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying but we
all liked it and enjoyed watching it.
So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage Ashes
to Ashes!
Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching any
of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch and it
gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I just don't
get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Exactly! That's what pisses me off about the BBC. They try to justify the
licence fee the by saying that it allows them to make shows that are not
commercially viable and then they drop shows due to them not getting the
viewing figures. I wish they would make up their bloody minds as to what
kind of broadcaster they are!

Fred X
Carl Waring
2010-04-15 08:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred X
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying but we
all liked it and enjoyed watching it.
So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage Ashes
to Ashes!
Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching any
of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch and it
gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I just don't
get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Exactly! That's what pisses me off about the BBC. They try to justify the
licence fee the by saying that it allows them to make shows that are not
commercially viable and then they drop shows due to them not getting the
viewing figures. I wish they would make up their bloody minds as to what
kind of broadcaster they are!
It's not really the BBCs fault though.

If a programme they show is succesful (ie gets good ratings) there are cries
of "it's not supposed to be about ratings", etc. yet when they show anything
that *doesn't* get good ratings, the cry goes up "why are we all forced
[sic] to pay for stuff that no-one watches."

So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".

Therefore they should just carry on as they are and be content that BBCs 1
and 2 are the most-watched pair of channels, even in multi-channel homes.
Therefore they must be doing *something* right.
--
Carl Waring
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-15 09:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:05:45 +0200, Sofa - Spud
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying but
we all liked it and enjoyed watching it.
So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage
Ashes to Ashes!
Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching
any of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch
and it gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I
just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it
isn't.
Exactly! That's what pisses me off about the BBC. They try to justify the
licence fee the by saying that it allows them to make shows that are not
commercially viable and then they drop shows due to them not getting the
viewing figures. I wish they would make up their bloody minds as to what
kind of broadcaster they are!
It's not really the BBCs fault though.
If a programme they show is succesful (ie gets good ratings) there are
cries of "it's not supposed to be about ratings", etc. yet when they
show anything that *doesn't* get good ratings, the cry goes up "why are
we all forced [sic] to pay for stuff that no-one watches."
Well that doesn't make sense at all on any level even for a BBC
apologist as yourself. If the programme was a towering success then all
would be fine, they'd keep making it. If it was a show on BBC3 with
small ratings they'd keep on making it. But here we are with a show they
hyoed and lots of people watched - look on here for threads about
Survivors and it's binned.

What people *do* have a problem with is binning this for another
*Cooking on Ice with the stars* show. Even you with your BBC rose timted
specs on can see this is wrong.
Post by Carl Waring
So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".
They don't even try
Post by Carl Waring
Therefore they should just carry on as they are and be content that BBCs
1 and 2 are the most-watched pair of channels, even in multi-channel
homes. Therefore they must be doing *something* right.
They could turn out wall to wall make overs and quiz shows and you'd be
here defending them . Most other people have some sense of critical ability.
Martin
2010-04-15 09:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
They could turn out wall to wall make overs and quiz shows and you'd be
here defending them .
Anybody willing to defend Cracking Antiques? I thought this sort of crap was a
thing of the past.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Most other people have some sense of critical ability.
who know shite when they see it.
--
Martin
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-15 09:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Post by Sofa - Spud
They could turn out wall to wall make overs and quiz shows and you'd be
here defending them .
Anybody willing to defend Cracking Antiques? I thought this sort of crap was a
thing of the past.
I posted about that last week - unbelievable!

I sat through half of the new Llewellyn Bowen offering - he went to
wales and sat in a house with some woman whose husband produced pop
bands, the house had been rebuilt. Super.
Post by Martin
Post by Sofa - Spud
Most other people have some sense of critical ability.
who know shite when they see it.
I make the effort to try any new show , what I don't do is dismiss out
of hand or says it's OK when it plainly isn't. As a licence payer it's
the least I should do - after all I paid for it!
Martin
2010-04-15 10:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Martin
Post by Sofa - Spud
They could turn out wall to wall make overs and quiz shows and you'd be
here defending them .
Anybody willing to defend Cracking Antiques? I thought this sort of crap was a
thing of the past.
I posted about that last week - unbelievable!
Last Wednesday we were on a ferry and missed it. Lucky us!
Post by Sofa - Spud
I sat through half of the new Llewellyn Bowen offering - he went to
wales and sat in a house with some woman whose husband produced pop
bands, the house had been rebuilt. Super.
Which channel is that on?
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Martin
Post by Sofa - Spud
Most other people have some sense of critical ability.
who know shite when they see it.
I make the effort to try any new show , what I don't do is dismiss out
of hand or says it's OK when it plainly isn't. As a licence payer it's
the least I should do - after all I paid for it!
Us too, that's how we came to watch Cracking Antiques. Having watched Bargain
Hunt we also knew that the woman in Cracking Antiques paid through the nose for
junk - Grunge Chic?
--
Martin
JNugent
2010-04-15 12:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Anybody willing to defend Cracking Antiques? I thought this sort of crap was a
thing of the past.
Har har.
Carl Waring
2010-04-16 08:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:05:45 +0200, Sofa - Spud
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying but we
all liked it and enjoyed watching it.
So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage Ashes
to Ashes!
Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching any
of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch and it
gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I just don't
get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it isn't.
Exactly! That's what pisses me off about the BBC. They try to justify the
licence fee the by saying that it allows them to make shows that are not
commercially viable and then they drop shows due to them not getting the
viewing figures. I wish they would make up their bloody minds as to what
kind of broadcaster they are!
It's not really the BBCs fault though.
If a programme they show is succesful (ie gets good ratings) there are
cries of "it's not supposed to be about ratings", etc. yet when they show
anything that *doesn't* get good ratings, the cry goes up "why are we all
forced [sic] to pay for stuff that no-one watches."
Well that doesn't make sense at all on any level even for a BBC apologist
as yourself. If the programme was a towering success then all would be
fine, they'd keep making it.
To cries of "it's not supposed to be all about ratings" from the usual
suspect. Not to mention the fact that there are some people who, if they had
their way, would take any popular BBC show and *GIVE* it to a commercial
channel 'because anything that popular shouldn't be on the BBC'. I mean,
please! You see the kind of mentality the BBC has to put up with!!
If it was a show on BBC3 with small ratings they'd keep on making it.
To cries of "why are we forced to fund programmes that no-one watches".

See, you just proved my point for me. Thanks.
But here we are with a show they hyoed and lots of people watched - look
on here for threads about Survivors and it's binned.
I'm sure they had their reasons.
What people *do* have a problem with is binning this for another *Cooking
on Ice with the stars* show.
Please cite a source for this statement of fact. ie that the cancelled
"Survivors" *will* be replaced by a "Cooking on Ice with the stars"-type
show.

Or, if that is, in fact as I suspect, merely your *opinion* (though stated
as fact) then I would think that they are more likely to replace it with
another drama.
Post by Carl Waring
So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".
They don't even try
Indeed not; and why should they when they know that anything they do will
always be criticised by *someone* and not necessarily for a good reason.

I'd rather they just continued doing exactly what they're *supposed* to be
doing, which is producing as wide a selection of informative, educational
and entertaining programming.
--
Carl Waring
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-16 09:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:05:45 +0200, Sofa - Spud
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying
but we all liked it and enjoyed watching it.
So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage
Ashes to Ashes!
Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching
any of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch
and it gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I
just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it
isn't.
Exactly! That's what pisses me off about the BBC. They try to justify the
licence fee the by saying that it allows them to make shows that are not
commercially viable and then they drop shows due to them not getting the
viewing figures. I wish they would make up their bloody minds as to what
kind of broadcaster they are!
It's not really the BBCs fault though.
If a programme they show is succesful (ie gets good ratings) there
are cries of "it's not supposed to be about ratings", etc. yet when
they show anything that *doesn't* get good ratings, the cry goes up
"why are we all forced [sic] to pay for stuff that no-one watches."
Well that doesn't make sense at all on any level even for a BBC
apologist as yourself. If the programme was a towering success then
all would be fine, they'd keep making it.
To cries of "it's not supposed to be all about ratings" from the usual
suspect. Not to mention the fact that there are some people who, if they
had their way, would take any popular BBC show and *GIVE* it to a
commercial channel 'because anything that popular shouldn't be on the
BBC'. I mean, please! You see the kind of mentality the BBC has to put
up with!!
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a commercial
channel unless you've taken the comment out of context. The fact that
the BBC has to *put up* with it is part and parcel of them being paid
for by a universal licence fee - you seem to think they should have no
criticism at all.
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
If it was a show on BBC3 with small ratings they'd keep on making it.
To cries of "why are we forced to fund programmes that no-one watches".
See, you just proved my point for me. Thanks.
I haven't made any point for you - if the show was on BBC3 it's 3
million ratings would be OK but as it's BBC1 it gets binned , move it to
BBC 3 then ! I watch a lot of stuff on BBC3 & 4 , no way does it get the
same figures as something prime time on BBC1 but it still gets made.
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
But here we are with a show they hyoed and lots of people watched -
look on here for threads about Survivors and it's binned.
I'm sure they had their reasons.
Ever get even the slightest inkling they *might* be wrong? They want us
to watch the shows, like this and Paradox, build up the audience ( which
obviously is going to be less than the first episode - a hardcore base
of fans) then pull it? Why not move it to BBC2?

Why should I give the BBC my time when their next new series starts if
they treat viewers like this?
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
What people *do* have a problem with is binning this for another
*Cooking on Ice with the stars* show.
Please cite a source for this statement of fact. ie that the cancelled
"Survivors" *will* be replaced by a "Cooking on Ice with the stars"-type
show.
*cite a source* ?? funny how you want sources for what others say yet
the comments you come out with seem little more than adoration worship
of the BBC.

It's clear looking at the schedules that the BBC has made more of the
cooking/lifestyle/ ballroom dancing on ice with stars shows in the last
few years - I actually watch TV and watch the schedules ( you've
admitted you don't actually watch that much) .

Looking at these schedules with a critical instead of a rose tinted eye
it's clear the output has gone the way of cheap to make recognised
formula TV - lifestyle/gameshow on ice stuff.
Post by Carl Waring
Or, if that is, in fact as I suspect, merely your *opinion* (though
stated as fact) then I would think that they are more likely to replace
it with another drama.
You would *think*? what's that a statement of fact or an opinion? What
evidence do you have that the budget for Survivors is to be used for
another drama?
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".
They don't even try
Indeed not; and why should they when they know that anything they do
will always be criticised by *someone* and not necessarily for a good
reason.
What possible use would it be to be surrounded by adoring misty eyed
fans like you? I'm on record here for regularly praising the BBC's
output - look at my posting history on new threads concerning BBC
programmes - if they are good I'll say so if not then I'll criticise ,
after all I AM paying for it!
Post by Carl Waring
I'd rather they just continued doing exactly what they're *supposed* to
be doing, which is producing as wide a selection of informative,
educational and entertaining programming.
What?? I can't believe you actually wrote that without an irony smiley -
they've binned several *entertaining* programmes which have been
mentioned here. "informative and educational" programmes have been
roundly criticise for being dumbed down - not all of them but many.

So thats 3 out of 3 fail then .

If the BBC make a great show you can be sure it'll be me here first in
line with the praise - Small World, Being human, Wonder of the solar
system,museum of life to name but a few. Funny how for someone *so* keen
to justify the BBC's bizarre actions you never actually appear to watch
any of the shows or indeed comment on them.
J G Miller
2010-04-16 13:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a commercial
channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.

From <http://www.theregister.co.UK/2003/08/28/bbc_news_site_facing_extinction/>

QUOTE

Tony Ball, for example, the chief exec of BSkyB. He took the opportunity
of his keynote speech at the recent Edinburgh TV festival to outline his
view of the BBC's future.

The BBC should be forced to sell off its most popular programmes he
suggested. And banned from buying any imports.

UNQUOTE

From <http://www.digitalspy.co.UK/broadcasting/news/a26817/the-david-elstein-interview-part-2-the-bbc.html>

QUOTE

David Elstein: I mean the simple fact of the matter is the
license fee is the wrong way to fund popular programming.

The market can fund that - and it's the wrong way to fund
unpopular programming because the government should fund that.

UNQUOTE

Also, recall this article from the London Evening Standard,
which at the time was owned by the Tory loving Associated Newspapers
Limited (a division of Daily Mail and General Trust)

<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-6397301-conservatives-will-close-bbc-website.do>

QUOTE

Conservatives will close BBC website
Last updated at 17:16pm on 27.08.03
 
THE BBC website, which is one of the most popular in Europe,
faces being shut down if the Conservatives get back into office.

UNQUOTE

Can Conservative and Unionist Party voters still hope that this will
come true under a Cameron administration?

NEVER forget that David Cameron was the Public Relations man for
Michael Green's Carlton Communications and is an entrenched opponent
of the BBC and public service broadcasting despite his glib promises
and fake assurances.
Carl Waring
2010-04-17 09:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a commercial
channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.

Thanks Mr Miller.
--
Carl Waring
JNugent
2010-04-18 01:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a commercial
channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.

May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Carl Waring
2010-04-18 08:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a commercial
channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
--
Carl Waring
JNugent
2010-04-18 11:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.

You seem not to appreciate the distinction between:

(a) saying something and

(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.

Or, if you do, you are prepared to overlook the difference if it helps you
try to score a point.
Carl Waring
2010-04-19 06:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by JNugent
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which, whilst
different I agree, give exactly the same end result. The BBC take all the
risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever arbitrary
scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a commercial
company to make money from.

Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong, without
getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the programme
or being sold it?
--
Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Or, if you do, you are prepared to overlook the difference if it helps you
try to score a point.
JNugent
2010-04-19 08:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by JNugent
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".

OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
J G Miller
2010-04-19 12:27:13 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, April 19th, 2010 at 09:56:56h +0100,
Post by JNugent
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Agreed -- of course it is not the same thing, but
being forced to sell something under duress is not the
same as selling something in the "free market" at
market rates.

Ask people whose properties are bought under powers
of { eminent domain | compulsory acquisition | compulsory
purchase | expropriation } whether they think they are
effectively having to "give up" their homes.
JNugent
2010-04-19 12:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
On Monday, April 19th, 2010 at 09:56:56h +0100,
Post by JNugent
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Agreed -- of course it is not the same thing, but
being forced to sell something under duress is not the
same as selling something in the "free market" at
market rates.
Ask people whose properties are bought under powers
of { eminent domain | compulsory acquisition | compulsory
purchase | expropriation } whether they think they are
effectively having to "give up" their homes.
In the theoretical case where their homes were totally-funded by grant aid
raised from the general taxpayer, they might not have such a legitimate
complaint.
Martin
2010-04-19 14:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
On Monday, April 19th, 2010 at 09:56:56h +0100,
Post by JNugent
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Agreed -- of course it is not the same thing, but
being forced to sell something under duress is not the
same as selling something in the "free market" at
market rates.
Ask people whose properties are bought under powers
of { eminent domain | compulsory acquisition | compulsory
purchase | expropriation } whether they think they are
effectively having to "give up" their homes.
Recently after years of the local authority trying to buy a piece of land
opposite Leiden Station from a property speculator, the compulsory purchase
procedure was initiated. The owner of the land organised an auction, bought it
for twice the independent valuer's value and then sold the land to the local
authority for the amount he had paid himself. I'm sure this sort of trick isn't
possible in UK
--
Martin
Carl Waring
2010-04-27 08:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.

BTW, sorry to drag this up again but I've been away.
--
Carl Waring
JNugent
2010-04-27 08:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply
and for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.
First, you're going to have to reinstate the context.
Carl Waring
2010-04-28 07:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.
First, you're going to have to reinstate the context.
Another wimpy "get-out clause" response. Just answer the damned question for
once.
--
Carl Waring
JNugent
2010-04-28 08:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply
and for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all
its achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because
they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.
First, you're going to have to reinstate the context.
Another wimpy "get-out clause" response. Just answer the damned question
for once.
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.

Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.

Fail to do so and I shan't.

Over to you and your snipping machine...
J G Miller
2010-04-28 12:36:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 at 09:43:35h +0100,
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?

And remember, making cuts is the good Tory thing to do ...

PS Why do you use an e-mail address for a domain registered
to

Martin Card
P. O. Box 429
Barker, Texas 77413
United States

Are you authorized to use that e-mail address?
Carl Waring
2010-04-29 08:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
On Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 at 09:43:35h +0100,
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
--
Carl Waring
OLD.HARRY
2010-04-29 10:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
On Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 at 09:43:35h +0100,
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
JNugent
2010-04-29 15:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
Thank you for that.
Carl Waring
2010-04-30 08:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
On Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 at 09:43:35h +0100,
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it, the context would still
have been clear in people's minds. Now, more than a few days later, even *I*
have forgotten what it was.

It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which you
don't have a suitable answer, which is the only logical conclusion to draw
in this case.

If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply then
we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope though.
--
Carl Waring
JNugent
2010-04-30 08:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.

Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context because it
would have made your question look even dafter.
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?

I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
Mike Henry
2010-04-30 13:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context because it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
When composing Message-ID: <hr6732$sqv$***@news.eternal-september.org>,
which was a reply to your Message-ID:
<4_mdnd0pkPhEh1HWnZ2dnUVZ8t-***@pipex.net>, Carl removed your entire
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.

If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
[end quote <4_mdnd0pkPhEh1HWnZ2dnUVZ8t-***@pipex.net>]
Carl Waring
2010-05-01 08:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context because it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.

All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...

"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".

No context required.

No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
--
Carl Waring
Mike Henry
2010-05-01 11:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context because it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion! He explicitly said
that he thought that the achievements were not of its own merits. When you
wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion. If you're now claiming
you were denying the same thing that he was also denying when he wrote
"Because they aren't", then it appears to me that you are both in
agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of its own merits.

You spectacularly failed to make it clear which part you were questioning.
The delay, and removal of context made things worse.
Post by Carl Waring
No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
No doubt you will continue to obfuscate and excessively snip posts,
allowing you to later proclaim that you meant something different. Your
arguments would carry more weight if you didn't resort to such tactics and
it would be easy for you to stop doing so. It's up to you whether you
change tactics and decide to argue honestly or whether you carry on as you
are.
JNugent
2010-05-01 12:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context because it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion! He explicitly said
that he thought that the achievements were not of its own merits. When you
wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion. If you're now claiming
"Because they aren't", then it appears to me that you are both in
agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of its own merits.
You spectacularly failed to make it clear which part you were questioning.
The delay, and removal of context made things worse.
Post by Carl Waring
No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
No doubt you will continue to obfuscate and excessively snip posts,
allowing you to later proclaim that you meant something different. Your
arguments would carry more weight if you didn't resort to such tactics and
it would be easy for you to stop doing so. It's up to you whether you
change tactics and decide to argue honestly or whether you carry on as you
are.
Quite.

Even at this stage, if CW wishes to phrase his question clearly and within
its correct context, I shall answer it. No problem.

CW:

Like many other posters, I am ALL FOR snipping away excess verbiage and
focusing only on the issue at hand (particularly towards the latter end of a
long, involved thread), but that does not justify the removal of necessary
context to which you and certain other posters are very prone.

I don't level any accusations as to your motives in doing that; I merely
point out that it is not helpful and not productive. It isn't my job to try
to reconstruct your questions for you. If I tried to do so, there can be
little doubt that you would try to get out of your self-painted corner by
arguing "That wasn't what I asked".

So please... for shame... make it clear what you *are* asking.

I am not frightened of any questions you can think up. Far from it.
Carl Waring
2010-05-02 07:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context
because
it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion!
No. It was obfuscation. Pure and simple.

Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own merits or not?

It's not a difficult question. Why is context important?
--
Carl Waring
Mike Henry
2010-05-02 09:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context
because
it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion!
No. It was obfuscation. Pure and simple.
I note you have again snipped, this time the bit where I explained why
your snipping caused a problem! Oh the irony.
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own merits or not?
It's not a difficult question. Why is context important?
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?

When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".

If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".

Which is it, A or B?
Martin
2010-05-02 10:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context
because
it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most people had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting policy) have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold to a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being given the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any* company - to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood as "for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion!
No. It was obfuscation. Pure and simple.
I note you have again snipped, this time the bit where I explained why
your snipping caused a problem! Oh the irony.
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own merits or not?
It's not a difficult question. Why is context important?
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
It is not surprising that Carl Waring has his own newsgroup and groupies
Carl Waring
2010-05-03 07:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that
it
was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context
because
it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most
people
had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of
context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the
latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting
policy)
have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or sold
to
a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being
given
the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any*
company -
to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being understood
as
"for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion!
No. It was obfuscation. Pure and simple.
I note you have again snipped, this time the bit where I explained why
your snipping caused a problem! Oh the irony.
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own merits or not?
It's not a difficult question. Why is context important?
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
It is not surprising that Carl Waring has his own newsgroup and groupies
Yeah. Some idiot (not me) decided to make one up - which anyone can do - and
it is a dead group.

So what?
--
--
Carl Waring
Martin
2010-05-03 08:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Martin
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid
collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context
in a
reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out
that it
was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context
because
it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what
you
were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most
people
had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's
achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of
context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the
latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting
policy)
have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking
about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or
sold to
a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being
given
the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any*
company -
to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being
understood as
"for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion!
No. It was obfuscation. Pure and simple.
I note you have again snipped, this time the bit where I explained why
your snipping caused a problem! Oh the irony.
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own merits or not?
It's not a difficult question. Why is context important?
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
It is not surprising that Carl Waring has his own newsgroup and groupies
Yeah. Some idiot (not me) decided to make one up - which anyone can do -
and it is a dead group.
So what?
free.uk.the-carl-waring-fan-club isn't dead. It seems a better place
than here to discuss your posting habits. I can understand why some
idiot created the group.
Carl Waring
2010-05-04 08:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Martin
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context
in a
reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to
retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out
that it
was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still
have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point
to
which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
Post by Carl Waring
which is the only logical conclusion to draw in this case.
I had indeed drawn that conclusion. You didn't restore the context
because
it
would have made your question look even dafter.
See my comments below.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what
you
were
talking about. That's a refreshingly honest admission, but most
people
had
probably concluded the same thing anyway.
post (except the last 4 lines) and reasoning which had built up to those
last 4 lines. He then quoted only the last 4 lines, then asked a question
based on the last 3 words. In my opinion it was mendacious to quote only
the 2nd half of an "on the one hand, on the other hand" pairing thus
making it look one-sided, but that's just my opinion.
If we are to use logic, Carl must think that the BBC's
achievements ARE
purely a result of its own merits.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
Post by J G Miller
Post by Sofa - Spud
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a
commercial channel unless you've taken the comment out of
context.
Actually the Murdochs and their minions, and the Elsteins (the
latter
being the former unofficial adviser on Tory broadcasting
policy)
have
implied just that without naming any programs in particular.
Proof, once again, that I do *actually* know what I'm talking
about.
Thanks Mr Miller.
I don't believe I have ever seen a weaker justification for
self-congratulation on Usenet.
May we at least be shown this "implication", do you think?
Did you not read JG's post *at all*?
I've read yours.
Now read Mr Miller's.
Post by OLD.HARRY
(a) saying something and
(b) having someone else perceive something you have said as "implying"
something other than what was said.
Okay, while I said "give away" they actually said "sell to" which,
whilst different I agree, give exactly the same end result.
Apart from the financial consideration (which may well be quite
substantial),
you mean?
Post by Carl Waring
The BBC take
all the risk in creating a show and, if successful enough (by whatever
arbitrary scale is introduced to measure it), is then given or
sold to
a
commercial company to make money from.
"Sold" is nowhere near the same as "given away".
Post by Carl Waring
Now, can you not agree that this is completely and utterly wrong,
without getting bogged down in whether they get there by being
given
the
programme or being sold it?
I can agree that it would be unjust for the BBC - or for *any*
company -
to
be forced to give away their products, "give away" being
understood as
"for
free".
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for
the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its achievements
were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Of course, if he'd just answered the damned question we could have avoided
all this crap.
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
Well clearly it was required, hence this discussion!
No. It was obfuscation. Pure and simple.
I note you have again snipped, this time the bit where I explained why
your snipping caused a problem! Oh the irony.
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own merits or not?
It's not a difficult question. Why is context important?
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
It is not surprising that Carl Waring has his own newsgroup and groupies
Yeah. Some idiot (not me) decided to make one up - which anyone can do -
and it is a dead group.
So what?
free.uk.the-carl-waring-fan-club isn't dead.
Oh, there must be two then. Sorry. More popular than I thought.
Post by Martin
It seems a better place
than here to discuss your posting habits. I can understand why some
idiot created the group.
At least you agree they're an idiot.
--
Carl Waring
Carl Waring
2010-05-03 08:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
Oh FFS! Here's my post AGAIN.


[quote]
Post by Mike Henry
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.

BTW, sorry to drag this up again but I've been away.
[/quote]

Mr Nugent clearly stated that it is his belief that all the BBC's
achievements are NOT purely a result of their own merits and I asked him to
explain the comment.

Now. Tell me. Which bit is unclear again?
--
Carl Waring
--
Carl Waring
Mike Henry
2010-05-03 08:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
Oh FFS! Here's my post AGAIN.
"FFS" to you, too. What's so hard about an A or B choice laid out on a
plate?
JNugent
2010-05-03 09:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Mike Henry
He explicitly said in his article that he thought that the achievements
were NOT of its own merits. So why are you now saying you meant to ask
that question, as it was already answered in the article?
When you wrote "Erm.... they're not?" I for one took it to mean you were
questioning the "Because they aren't" assertion - call that "Option A,
Carl thinks the BBC's achievements ARE of its own merits".
If you're now claiming you were denying the same thing that he was also
denying when he wrote "Because they aren't", then it appears to me that
you are both in agreement and the BBC's achievements are not a result of
its own merits. Call that "Option B, Carl agrees with JNugent and thinks
the BBC's achievements are NOT of its own merits".
Which is it, A or B?
Oh FFS! Here's my post AGAIN.
[quote]
Post by Mike Henry
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.
BTW, sorry to drag this up again but I've been away.
[/quote]
Mr Nugent clearly stated that it is his belief that all the BBC's
achievements are NOT purely a result of their own merits and I asked him
to explain the comment.
You are wrong. I did not say that.

I said - and meant - that not all the BBC's achievements were results of its
own merits, NOT (as you wrote above) that all of the BBC's achievements were
not results of its own merits.

Two separate and distinct statements with quite different meanings, expressed
in our beautiful language by the simple device of slightly changed word order.

With lack of comprehension like that on your part, I am less surprised that
you fail to comprehend why your excessive snipping is so unhelpful - even to
yourself. Mind you, you have had it pointed out to you, quite explicitly.
Post by Carl Waring
Now. Tell me. Which bit is unclear again?
Your meaning, and the question you were asking.

You have now given a clue as to why that is - you didn't understand what had
been said.
J G Miller
2010-05-02 15:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own
merits or not?
No, some of them are a result of the merits of its independent producers
and others are from its co-producers (WNET, HBO, Discovery Channel etc).
Carl Waring
2010-05-03 07:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own
merits or not?
No, some of them are a result of the merits of its independent producers
and others are from its co-producers (WNET, HBO, Discovery Channel etc).
No. Without the BBC those programmes wouldn't have been either conceived or
made.

Classic example; "Life On Mars". This programme was pimped around all the
major broadcasters and NOT ONE wanted to make the show as it was not deemed
commercial. So the BBC made it and it was a huge hit.

Co-pros simply provide some extra funding.
--
Carl Waring
Martin
2010-05-03 08:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own
merits or not?
No, some of them are a result of the merits of its independent producers
and others are from its co-producers (WNET, HBO, Discovery Channel etc).
No. Without the BBC those programmes wouldn't have been either conceived
or made.
Classic example; "Life On Mars". This programme was pimped around all
the major broadcasters and NOT ONE wanted to make the show as it was not
deemed commercial. So the BBC made it and it was a huge hit.
Co-pros simply provide some extra funding.
WNET, HBO, Discovery Channel NGC etc. show plenty of excellent
programmes which have no BBC involvement.
How do you think they conceive the programmes without BBC help?
You could consider the other scenario where Discovery, for example,
conceives a programme and sells the idea to the BBC
Carl Waring
2010-05-04 08:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by Carl Waring
Are all the BBC's achievements purely a result of it's own
merits or not?
No, some of them are a result of the merits of its independent producers
and others are from its co-producers (WNET, HBO, Discovery Channel etc).
No. Without the BBC those programmes wouldn't have been either conceived
or made.
Classic example; "Life On Mars". This programme was pimped around all
the major broadcasters and NOT ONE wanted to make the show as it was not
deemed commercial. So the BBC made it and it was a huge hit.
Co-pros simply provide some extra funding.
WNET, HBO, Discovery Channel NGC etc. show plenty of excellent
programmes which have no BBC involvement.
True. Your point being?
Post by Martin
How do you think they conceive the programmes without BBC help?
As I don't pay for them I don't care.
Post by Martin
You could consider the other scenario where Discovery, for example,
conceives a programme and sells the idea to the BBC
You could. Not saying it doesn't happen, but that's probably (unless you can
*prove* otherwise) not the "norm".

So, we have established that the BBC uses indys and co-pros. This they were
*forced* to do by the last Tory Government. However, as only 25% of their
programmes are made in this way, I think it is still safe to say that the
vast majority of their output (on TV *and* radio) are *ENTIRELY* a result of
their own merits.

So you *were* wrong.
--
Carl Waring
J G Miller
2010-05-03 14:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Without the BBC those programmes wouldn't have been either conceived
or made.
Really? Rome was a co-production of HBO and the BBC.

According to Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Rome_(TV_series)>

QUOTE

The series was begun after William J. MacDonald and John Milius
pitched the idea to HBO as a mini series.

UNQUOTE

Sounds to me like the show was conceived without the BBC.
Carl Waring
2010-05-04 08:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
Post by Carl Waring
Without the BBC those programmes wouldn't have been either conceived
or made.
Really? Rome was a co-production of HBO and the BBC.
According to Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Rome_(TV_series)>
QUOTE
The series was begun after William J. MacDonald and John Milius
pitched the idea to HBO as a mini series.
UNQUOTE
Sounds to me like the show was conceived without the BBC.
Perhaps I should have said "may not". Besides, that's *one* programme out of
the hundreds, if not thousands, that the BBC make or commission every year.
--
Carl Waring
Carl Waring
2010-05-01 08:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by OLD.HARRY
Post by Carl Waring
Post by J G Miller
Post by JNugent
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Are you incapable of reading earlier postings in the thread?
I can only assume so.
because many people treat posts as ephemera and avoid collecting the
ramblings or Carl Waring. When somebody asks you to post the context
that you over snipped you should do as asked. Otherwise you will find
more and more people will plonk you
The general idea is that the poster leaves sufficient context in a reply
for others to follow a discussion, not that every reader has to retrieve
old messages because you over snip.
If you can't understand that you shouldn't be posting to newsgroups.
If he had answered the question when I asked it,
Immediately on seeing your incomplete question, I pointed out that it was
devoid of context and asked you to reinstate the missing text. The delay
since then has been all yours.
Another well-deflected non-answer.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
the context would still have been clear in people's minds.
How, when it wasn't there to be seen?
So now you have such a short-term memory you can't remember something from
one day ago?

Sorry. I'll bear that in mind in future.
Post by JNugent
Now, more than a few days later, even *I* have forgotten what it was.
Did you ever actually know what it was?
Yes but you obviously didn't. You should really tell people about these
memory problems you seem to have. How are we to know, otheriwse?
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
It is a very good way of avoiding answering a question or point to which
you don't have a suitable answer
Exactly.
I'm glad you agree that's what you did.
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
If Mr Nugent would care to now re-state the context and add his reply
then we can continue the discussion. I won't be holding out much hope
though.
How on God's Earth can *I* "re-state" the context which was absent from
*your* question?
I have just now gone to the bother or checking back and all the context
needed was in my original reply.

[quote]
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to apply and
for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as though all its
achievements were purely a result of its own merits. Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.
BTW, sorry to drag this up again but I've been away.
--
Carl Waring
[/quote]

You made a statement. I questioned that statement. Nothing else. No previous
replies or context was required.
Post by JNugent
I do, however, welcome the confirmation that you don't know what you were
talking about.
I know *exactly* what I'm talking about. I usually do, or I don't talk about
it.
--
Carl Waring
J G Miller
2010-05-01 13:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
So now you have such a short-term memory you can't remember
something from one day ago?
Even if somebody has forgotten something in a previous day's (or even
week's) posting, all it takes is a simple mouse click (or a couple of
up arrows or whatever) to revisit the earlier posting.

Selective amnesia is no defence at all.
JNugent
2010-05-01 13:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
Post by Carl Waring
So now you have such a short-term memory you can't remember
something from one day ago?
Even if somebody has forgotten something in a previous day's (or even
week's) posting, all it takes is a simple mouse click (or a couple of
up arrows or whatever) to revisit the earlier posting.
Not with my set-up.

"read" messages disapperar when the app is closed.
Post by J G Miller
Selective amnesia is no defence at all.
Well, quite.

I never knew what Waring was talking about. Neither did anyone else excpet he
himself.

He forgot what he was talking about (apparently).

Who has the amnesia?
J G Miller
2010-05-01 14:07:59 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, May 1st, 2010 at 14:28:53h +0100,
Post by JNugent
Not with my set-up.
So get a proper new reader, for example
free and open source GPLed pan

<http://pan.rebelbase.COM/>

Or if you prefer possibly closed source

<http://www.slyck.COM/xnews.php>

Or if you prefer proprietary closed source payware

<http://www.forteinc.COM/agent/>

Thunderbird can read news, but it is primarily a web browser
with e-mail added on, and news tacked on after that.

But at least you do earn some bonus points for not using MS-Outlook.
Post by JNugent
"read" messages disapperar when the app is closed.
Have you checked your configuration/preferences?
Post by JNugent
Who has the amnesia?
I forget now.
martin
2010-04-29 09:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
OTOH, given the unique way that the BBC is funded (by a compulsory
per-household tax), it would be reasonable for unique rules to
apply and for the corporation not to be allowed to operate as
though all its achievements were purely a result of its own merits.
Because they aren't.
Erm.... they're not? You're going to have to explain that one.
First, you're going to have to reinstate the context.
Another wimpy "get-out clause" response. Just answer the damned
question for once.
I can't do that unless it is possible to understand what it is.
Reinstate the (proper) context and I'll happily answer it.
Fail to do so and I shan't.
Over to you and your snipping machine...
Dead horse flogger!
J G Miller
2010-04-29 12:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Dead horse flogger!
I always say, "Do not stop flogging until rigor mortis has set in."

To be even more rigorous, one should await until there is clear
evidence of seepage of liquid due to putrefaction of the tissue.
Carl Waring
2010-04-17 09:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:05:45 +0200, Sofa - Spud
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
FFS!! I liked that - yes it was predictable, yes it was annoying but
we all liked it and enjoyed watching it.
So that's Paradox cancelled and now this - but they could manage
Ashes to Ashes!
Given the unique way the BBC is funded why should I bother watching
any of the BBC's stuff? If it's minority programming I could watch
and it gets pulled if it's mainstream and I watch it gets pulled. I
just don't get how they can justify it - either it's ratings or it
isn't.
Exactly! That's what pisses me off about the BBC. They try to justify the
licence fee the by saying that it allows them to make shows that are not
commercially viable and then they drop shows due to them not getting the
viewing figures. I wish they would make up their bloody minds as to what
kind of broadcaster they are!
It's not really the BBCs fault though.
If a programme they show is succesful (ie gets good ratings) there are
cries of "it's not supposed to be about ratings", etc. yet when they
show anything that *doesn't* get good ratings, the cry goes up "why are
we all forced [sic] to pay for stuff that no-one watches."
Well that doesn't make sense at all on any level even for a BBC
apologist as yourself. If the programme was a towering success then all
would be fine, they'd keep making it.
To cries of "it's not supposed to be all about ratings" from the usual
suspect. Not to mention the fact that there are some people who, if they
had their way, would take any popular BBC show and *GIVE* it to a
commercial channel 'because anything that popular shouldn't be on the
BBC'. I mean, please! You see the kind of mentality the BBC has to put up
with!!
I've never seen anyone say a programme should be *given* to a commercial
channel unless you've taken the comment out of context.
Nope. Has been mentioned on Digital Spy a few times. An idea from various
other, anti-BBC, sources.
Post by Sofa - Spud
The fact that the BBC has to *put up* with it is part and parcel of them
being paid for by a universal licence fee - you seem to think they should
have no criticism at all.
Valid criticism is fine. It's the pointless, contrary, mis-informed and
downright stupid criticisms that I don't agree with.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
If it was a show on BBC3 with small ratings they'd keep on making it.
To cries of "why are we forced to fund programmes that no-one watches".
See, you just proved my point for me. Thanks.
I haven't made any point for you - if the show was on BBC3 it's 3 million
ratings would be OK but as it's BBC1 it gets binned , move it to BBC 3
then ! I watch a lot of stuff on BBC3 & 4 , no way does it get the same
figures as something prime time on BBC1 but it still gets made.
Pointless conjecture, unless you actually have examples.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
But here we are with a show they hyoed and lots of people watched - look
on here for threads about Survivors and it's binned.
I'm sure they had their reasons.
Ever get even the slightest inkling they *might* be wrong? They want us to
watch the shows, like this and Paradox, build up the audience ( which
obviously is going to be less than the first episode - a hardcore base of
fans) then pull it? Why not move it to BBC2?
Where the ratings fall because - if you remember - we're all supposedly
idiots who can't change a channel, so then come the cryies of "why are we
forced [sic] to fund stuff that no-one's watching".

And don't tell me that *wouldn't* happen because it does, all the time.
(Though not necessarily through those exact circumstances).
Post by Sofa - Spud
Why should I give the BBC my time when their next new series starts if
they treat viewers like this?
Well don't then I'm happy not to cut off my nose to spite my face.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
What people *do* have a problem with is binning this for another
*Cooking on Ice with the stars* show.
Please cite a source for this statement of fact. ie that the cancelled
"Survivors" *will* be replaced by a "Cooking on Ice with the stars"-type
show.
*cite a source* ?? funny how you want sources for what others say yet the
comments you come out with seem little more than adoration worship of the
BBC.
BS. You stated that something would happen without qualifying it. Was it
fact or opinion?

If the latter, then that's fine. If the former, what's wrong with asking you
to cite a source as I have never ever heard that stated as fact.
Post by Sofa - Spud
It's clear looking at the schedules that the BBC has made more of the
cooking/lifestyle/ ballroom dancing on ice with stars shows in the last
few years - I actually watch TV and watch the schedules ( you've admitted
you don't actually watch that much) .
Yes, and? They're very popular and, to a certain degree, somewhat PSB also.

However, they are *not* being produced *instead of*, or to the detriment of,
anything else or any other type of programme. There are still plenty of good
dramas being made by and for the BBC.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Looking at these schedules with a critical instead of a rose tinted eye
it's clear the output has gone the way of cheap to make recognised formula
TV - lifestyle/gameshow on ice stuff.
Really? What's all this then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/

If you feel inclined, try this for a more rounded over-view of everything
the BBC does
http://www.bbc.co.uk/a-z/
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
Or, if that is, in fact as I suspect, merely your *opinion* (though
stated as fact) then I would think that they are more likely to replace
it with another drama.
You would *think*? what's that a statement of fact or an opinion?
The word "think" should have been a big clue.
Post by Sofa - Spud
What evidence do you have that the budget for Survivors is to be used for
another drama?
Think about the history of what has usually been shown in the week-day 9pm
slot. Has it been drama or has it been "lifestyle/gameshow on ice stuff"
stuff?

Or, to put it another way. Name me one "lifestyle/gameshow on ice stuff"
show that has been regularly shown at 9pm on a week-day on BBC1.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".
They don't even try
Indeed not; and why should they when they know that anything they do will
always be criticised by *someone* and not necessarily for a good reason.
What possible use would it be to be surrounded by adoring misty eyed fans
like you? I'm on record here for regularly praising the BBC's output -
look at my posting history on new threads concerning BBC programmes - if
they are good I'll say so if not then I'll criticise , after all I AM
paying for it!
And that's fair enough. I'm talking about them not being able to please all
the people all the time; despite people thinking that they should try and do
that. We're back to the fair/un-fair criticism thing again.

I *know* the BBC isn't perfect and I have never said it is.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by Carl Waring
I'd rather they just continued doing exactly what they're *supposed* to
be doing, which is producing as wide a selection of informative,
educational and entertaining programming.
What?? I can't believe you actually wrote that without an irony smiley -
they've binned several *entertaining* programmes which have been mentioned
here. "informative and educational" programmes have been roundly criticise
for being dumbed down - not all of them but many.
So thats 3 out of 3 fail then .
You are welcome to your *opinion*, but that doesn't make it a fact.
Post by Sofa - Spud
If the BBC make a great show you can be sure it'll be me here first in
line with the praise - Small World, Being human, Wonder of the solar
system,museum of life to name but a few.
Good to know you're getting some value out of your LF; as the majority of
people in the UK are.
Post by Sofa - Spud
Funny how for someone *so* keen to justify the BBC's bizarre actions you
never actually appear to watch any of the shows or indeed comment on them.
I can only fairly comment on the shows I have seen and I don't watch
*that*much BBC overall.

However, that does not stop me from talking and the BBC in *general* terms,
as we have been doing here.
--
Carl Waring
The Other Mike
2010-04-15 09:42:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:52:55 +0100, "Carl Waring"
Post by Carl Waring
So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".
Therefore they should just carry on as they are and be content that BBCs 1
and 2 are the most-watched pair of channels, even in multi-channel homes.
Therefore they must be doing *something* right.
In the early days of breakfast tv there were some that deemed the
success of BBC compared to its rival(s?) was purely down to the tv
defaulting to channel 1 at switch on and the average punter being too
lazy/busy to change channel.


--
Carl Waring
2010-04-16 08:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:52:55 +0100, "Carl Waring"
Post by Carl Waring
So, whatever they do, the BBC can't "win".
Therefore they should just carry on as they are and be content that BBCs 1
and 2 are the most-watched pair of channels, even in multi-channel homes.
Therefore they must be doing *something* right.
In the early days of breakfast tv there were some that deemed the
success of BBC compared to its rival(s?) was purely down to the tv
defaulting to channel 1 at switch on and the average punter being too
lazy/busy to change channel.
Yes, and? There are some around here who probably still think that. It was a
load of bollocks then and still is.
--
Carl Waring
The Other Mike
2010-04-19 20:18:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:05:29 +0100, "Carl Waring"
Post by Carl Waring
Post by The Other Mike
In the early days of breakfast tv there were some that deemed the
success of BBC compared to its rival(s?) was purely down to the tv
defaulting to channel 1 at switch on and the average punter being too
lazy/busy to change channel.
Yes, and? There are some around here who probably still think that. It was a
load of bollocks then and still is.
When you can't find the remote at 6:30am because the kids have hidden
it in a really obscure place you don't piss about looking for the
buttons on the telly (sometimes buried out of sight or barely visible
to bleary eyes) you just carry on eating toast and drinking tea and
the telly carries on in the background on BBC1.

Of course people like you probably have a butler to change channels.


--
Martin
2010-04-19 21:59:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:18:26 +0100, The Other Mike
Post by The Other Mike
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:05:29 +0100, "Carl Waring"
Post by Carl Waring
Post by The Other Mike
In the early days of breakfast tv there were some that deemed the
success of BBC compared to its rival(s?) was purely down to the tv
defaulting to channel 1 at switch on and the average punter being too
lazy/busy to change channel.
Yes, and? There are some around here who probably still think that. It was a
load of bollocks then and still is.
When you can't find the remote at 6:30am because the kids have hidden
it in a really obscure place you don't piss about looking for the
buttons on the telly (sometimes buried out of sight or barely visible
to bleary eyes) you just carry on eating toast and drinking tea and
the telly carries on in the background on BBC1.
Of course people like you probably have a butler to change channels.
or he only watches BBC1
--
Martin
Carl Waring
2010-04-27 08:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Mike
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:05:29 +0100, "Carl Waring"
Post by Carl Waring
Post by The Other Mike
In the early days of breakfast tv there were some that deemed the
success of BBC compared to its rival(s?) was purely down to the tv
defaulting to channel 1 at switch on and the average punter being too
lazy/busy to change channel.
Yes, and? There are some around here who probably still think that. It was a
load of bollocks then and still is.
When you can't find the remote at 6:30am because the kids have hidden
it in a really obscure place you don't piss about looking for the
buttons on the telly (sometimes buried out of sight or barely visible
to bleary eyes) you just carry on eating toast and drinking tea and
the telly carries on in the background on BBC1.
Unless you're part of the BARB panel then it really won't matter.

It's still a load of crap excuse though.
--
Carl Waring
AC
2010-04-13 23:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Oh right. I stopped watching but got the impression it was concluded. Ho
hum.

AC
Gilgamesh
2010-04-14 00:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could always
read.
AlfyDoor
2010-04-14 00:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilgamesh
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could always
read.
Not really.

The original tv show came first, but Terry Nation rather disowned it after
the first series. From there he had a major fall-out with producer Terence
Dudley over the direction the show should take. Nation subsequently wrote
his own novelisation including the major premises and intros from the first
series, but branching off into a different direction.

For some rights reason, the remake had to caption that it was based on Terry
Nation's novel rather than the original tv series. Although the beginnings
are largely similar, the remake then takes things into a third different set
of possibilities.

Maybe you're all right - let's forget the whole bloody thing. More trouble
than it's worth...
AC
2010-04-14 11:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilgamesh
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could always
read.
Ever compared the Bourne books with the movies? Both are great, but feck all
to do with each other. IIRC, the only thing they have in common is the
opening scene in the first book and movie, and the name Bourne.

AC
Fred X
2010-04-14 13:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilgamesh
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could
always read.
You could always read! We are not bunch of readers, we just want to
sit on our arses and enjoy the work of others!

Fred X
solar penguin
2010-04-14 20:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred X
Post by Gilgamesh
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could
always read.
You could always read! We are not bunch of readers, we just want to
sit on our arses and enjoy the work of others!
Why can't you enjoy the book while sitting on your arses? Have you
all got your eyes in your buttocks?
Soze
2010-04-14 21:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by Fred X
Post by Gilgamesh
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could
always read.
You could always read! We are not bunch of readers, we just want to
sit on our arses and enjoy the work of others!
Why can't you enjoy the book while sitting on your arses? Have you
all got your eyes in your buttocks?
I find sitting on my arse to be by far the most suitable way to read a book.
I`d find it incredibly tiresome to read whilst standing up or walking.
J G Miller
2010-04-14 21:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
I`d find it incredibly tiresome to read whilst standing up or
walking.
The Kindle (tm) becomes a bit of burden after a time I guess.
Soze
2010-04-14 23:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
Post by Soze
I`d find it incredibly tiresome to read whilst standing up or
walking.
The Kindle (tm) becomes a bit of burden after a time I guess.
I`ve never quite got the point of a kindle. Perhaps using one reveals
all...and granted I`m not someone who`s forever on the move. But even
so...does anyone really need more than one or two books with them at any
given point?
J G Miller
2010-04-15 00:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soze
I`ve never quite got the point of a kindle.
I think the idea is to eliminate paper and the need for stockpiles of
books taking up space in a warehouse, compared to an air-conditioned
server room with lots of machines from which multiple copies of the
same item can be sold from the same storage space.

Presumably (since I have not seen one) the benefits for the user
are the ability to select font and font size, and to be able to
read under low light conditions.
Post by Soze
But even so...does anyone really need more than one or two books
with them at any given point?
If you are on the move, then you only really need one book, and that
book of course is only available in electronic form, with the words,
"Don't Panic" written in large, friendly letters on the cover.
john smith
2010-04-15 00:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
Post by Soze
I`ve never quite got the point of a kindle.
I think the idea is to eliminate paper and the need for stockpiles of
books taking up space in a warehouse, compared to an air-conditioned
server room with lots of machines from which multiple copies of the
same item can be sold from the same storage space.
Presumably (since I have not seen one) the benefits for the user
are the ability to select font and font size, and to be able to
read under low light conditions.
Post by Soze
But even so...does anyone really need more than one or two books
with them at any given point?
If you are on the move, then you only really need one book, and that
book of course is only available in electronic form, with the words,
"Don't Panic" written in large, friendly letters on the cover.
Haha! Just listening to BBC Radio's "The Doctor and Douglas" (Adams, of
course!) so that was a nice bit of synchronicity!
Esra Sdrawkcab
2010-04-15 07:25:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:43:20 +0200, john smith
Post by john smith
Haha! Just listening to BBC Radio's "The Doctor and Douglas" (Adams, of
course!) so that was a nice bit of synchronicity!
Bah!

Sorry, this programme is not available to listen again
--
Nuns! Nuns! Reverse
Hulahoop
2010-04-15 22:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by Fred X
Post by Gilgamesh
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could
always read.
You could always read! We are not bunch of readers, we just want to
sit on our arses and enjoy the work of others!
Why can't you enjoy the book while sitting on your arses? Have you
all got your eyes in your buttocks?
No, but IMHO there are too many people here who talk from between their
buttocks (and I am not making a reference to Love and Monsters)

Regards

Ged
Sofa - Spud
2010-04-15 09:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilgamesh
Post by tnm-collectables
BBC have axed Survivors! - great! now we will never know what it was
all about! - hope they organise a one off to tie up the loose ends -
not surprising really as they dragged their feet in series 2 stories!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s54/survivors/news/a214070/bbc-axes-survivors-after-two-series.html
Isn't it based upon a book by Terry Nation? In which case you could
always read.
Not the point though is it? this is a TV show loosely based on the book.
The original series was superb the second and third got really poor ,
non really followed the book.
Carl Waring
2010-05-01 14:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
Hmmm. That went a little wrong, didn't it!

What I *meant* to put was ...

All I wanted was a justification for his questioning /rebuttle of that
statement.

Sorry. Got a little confuddled there :-o
JNugent
2010-05-02 23:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Carl Waring
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
Hmmm. That went a little wrong, didn't it!
What I *meant* to put was ...
All I wanted was a justification for his questioning /rebuttle of that
statement.
Sorry. Got a little confuddled there :-o
Don't worry about it.

It was just as clear as your original question wasn't.
Carl Waring
2010-05-03 07:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Carl Waring
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
Hmmm. That went a little wrong, didn't it!
What I *meant* to put was ...
All I wanted was a justification for his questioning /rebuttle of that
statement.
Sorry. Got a little confuddled there :-o
Don't worry about it.
It was just as clear as your original question wasn't.
Ahhh. I see what you mean about sniping and context now.

Of course, in my case (above) it was more important than trying to get an
answer out of ONE statement.
--
--
Carl Waring
JNugent
2010-05-03 09:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Waring
Post by JNugent
Post by Carl Waring
Post by Carl Waring
All I wanted was a justification for the statement that...
"all [the BBC's] achievements [are] purely a result of its own merits".
No context required.
No doubt Mr Nugent will now find another way to avoid answering the
question.
Hmmm. That went a little wrong, didn't it!
What I *meant* to put was ...
All I wanted was a justification for his questioning /rebuttle of
that statement.
Sorry. Got a little confuddled there :-o
Don't worry about it.
It was just as clear as your original question wasn't.
Ahhh. I see what you mean about sniping and context now.
Sniping or snipping?

I snipped *nothing* but empty space from the post to which I was responding.

If anything is missing and should be there, it is absent because you didn't
put it there.
Post by Carl Waring
Of course, in my case (above) it was more important than trying to get
an answer out of ONE statement.
I wonder whether you even understand the difference between statements that
mean different things.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...