« Topics
1234...22232425
davidhorman2,315 posts since 8 Mar 2005
Channel Channel Islands

The one from the official BBC News presentation is hardly meaningless.


It's the pointless circular format that annoys me. There's no hierarchical relationship between the categories or their members.

There's probably been an edict that bullet point lists are banned so Will and Izzy have been tasked with rearranging them all into pretty layouts.
5
House, Justin and 2 others
  • Brekkie
  • guest03
gave kudos
Crazy Steve (previously Jobsworth) 19 posts since 30 May 2019

The one from the official BBC News presentation is hardly meaningless.


It's the pointless circular format that annoys me. There's no hierarchical relationship between the categories or their members.

There's probably been an edict that bullet point lists are banned so Will and Izzy have been tasked with rearranging them all into pretty layouts.


Edict? From who? Where do you get this nonsense.
Crazy Steve (previously Jobsworth) 19 posts since 30 May 2019

Edict? From who? Where do you get this nonsense.


It's a joke. I'm facetiously attempting to explain why someone would go for such an over-designed graphic.


No you’re not. You’re trying to portray an image of a ridiculous BBC cause you think it’s funny to do so. There are no edicts. There are no all powerful Murdoch types to command how each programme must cover something. So stop wildly claiming things that aren’t true.
1
Parker gave kudos
davidhorman2,315 posts since 8 Mar 2005
Channel Channel Islands
No you’re not.


I know my own thoughts better than you do, thank you very much. Accusing people of lying just because you've misinterpreted something they've posted is not going to endear you to anyone.

Quote:
You’re trying to portray an image of a ridiculous BBC cause you think it’s funny to do so.


That much is absolutely true. But only in a mildly and affectionately deprecating way, and I certainly didn't expect anyone to take my post so seriously.

Quote:
There are no edicts.


I never seriously suggested or stated that to be the case. It was a joke. I should have thought the fact that I referred to W1A characters made that obvious.

Of course you might not have seen W1A, since it would probably have given you a seizure if you did. Your posting history, short as it is, indicates an inability to spot humour and an over-abundance of antagonism.

Quote:
There are no all powerful Murdoch types to command how each programme must cover something.


I certainly said nothing of that sort. That's pure confabulation on your part.
Last edited by davidhorman on 2 February 2020 2:50pm
11
Crazy Steve (previously Jobsworth) 19 posts since 30 May 2019
No you’re not.


I know my own thoughts better than you do, thank you very much. Accusing people of lying just because you've misinterpreted something they've posted is not going to endear you to anyone.

Quote:
You’re trying to portray an image of a ridiculous BBC cause you think it’s funny to do so.


That much is absolutely true. But only in a mildly and affectionately deprecating way, and I certainly didn't expect anyone to take my post so seriously.

Quote:
There are no edicts.


I never seriously suggested or stated that to be the case. It was a joke. I should have thought the fact that I referred to W1A characters made that obvious.

Of course you might not have seen W1A, since it would probably have given you a seizure if you did. Your posting history, short as it is, indicates an inability to spot humour and an over-abundance of antagonism.

Quote:
There are no all powerful Murdoch types to command how each programme must cover something.


I certainly said nothing of that sort. That's pure confabulation on your part.


My posting history shows that I will challenge nonsense, of which your post was of the very highest order. Rolling Eyes
1
JamesWorldNews gave kudos
madmusician922 posts since 2 Jun 2006
Central (West) Midlands Today
No you’re not.


I know my own thoughts better than you do, thank you very much. Accusing people of lying just because you've misinterpreted something they've posted is not going to endear you to anyone.

Quote:
You’re trying to portray an image of a ridiculous BBC cause you think it’s funny to do so.


That much is absolutely true. But only in a mildly and affectionately deprecating way, and I certainly didn't expect anyone to take my post so seriously.

Quote:
There are no edicts.


I never seriously suggested or stated that to be the case. It was a joke. I should have thought the fact that I referred to W1A characters made that obvious.

Of course you might not have seen W1A, since it would probably have given you a seizure if you did. Your posting history, short as it is, indicates an inability to spot humour and an over-abundance of antagonism.

Quote:
There are no all powerful Murdoch types to command how each programme must cover something.


I certainly said nothing of that sort. That's pure confabulation on your part.


My posting history shows that I will challenge nonsense, of which your post was of the very highest order. Rolling Eyes

With all due respect, your posting history makes you look like a bit of a ****.
8
SuperSajuuk, davidhorman and 5 others
  • chevron
  • BBI45
  • VMPhil
  • Brekkie
  • MatthewF
gave kudos
Crazy Steve (previously Jobsworth) 19 posts since 30 May 2019

I know my own thoughts better than you do, thank you very much. Accusing people of lying just because you've misinterpreted something they've posted is not going to endear you to anyone.


That much is absolutely true. But only in a mildly and affectionately deprecating way, and I certainly didn't expect anyone to take my post so seriously.


I never seriously suggested or stated that to be the case. It was a joke. I should have thought the fact that I referred to W1A characters made that obvious.

Of course you might not have seen W1A, since it would probably have given you a seizure if you did. Your posting history, short as it is, indicates an inability to spot humour and an over-abundance of antagonism.


I certainly said nothing of that sort. That's pure confabulation on your part.


My posting history shows that I will challenge nonsense, of which your post was of the very highest order. Rolling Eyes

With all due respect, your posting history makes you look like a bit of a ****.


Happy to called whatever you want, but his post was still nonsense.
madmusician922 posts since 2 Jun 2006
Central (West) Midlands Today

My posting history shows that I will challenge nonsense, of which your post was of the very highest order. Rolling Eyes

With all due respect, your posting history makes you look like a bit of a ****.


Happy to called whatever you want, but his post was still nonsense.

One of my favourite thing about this forum is insider input, but all your previous posts are basically just, “no, that is wrong” (sometimes to knowledgeable members, too) without any further elucidation. It’s not a good look.
8