Where would we be without Dog spreading joy and happiness around the forum?
I always find his posts so knowledgeable, friendly and full of interest. He's so accommodating of other people's interests. A model contributor to the forum.
Not for him the bitterness and sourness that pervades the posts of others who sneer from the sidelines, misunderstand people's posts and look down their noses at everyone else.
All hail Dog!
Another one.
There was a thread recently from someone else questioning the sanity of this thread. I concur.
As i say in my post above, if you think this is normal, then the very best of luck.
I'm sorry if people discussing a shared interest (abeit an unusual one) causes you so much distress.
I have to say that in my experience the *really* tragic people are the ones who get a buzz out of telling other people how sad they are, and basking in their self-imagined sense of superiority. Now *that's* sad.
I'm sorry if people discussing a shared interest (abeit an unusual one) causes you so much distress.
I have to say that in my experience the *really* tragic people are the ones who get a buzz out of telling other people how sad they are, and basking in their self-imagined sense of superiority. Now *that's* sad.
This wasn't my point.
My point is about why it matters who is presenting the news at a specific time. I wasn't oroginally calling anyone anything.
Again, as I said before, this is the response I expected.
So, again, please can one of you tell me why it matters so much.
It doesn't
matter
at all who is presenting when. News channel schedules are utterly inconsequential in the big scheme of things.
But where is the harm of taking an interest in such things? It's certainly no more weird than some of the other things discussed on this forum. Each to their own, etc.
If your original question was motivated by mere curiosity and not a desire to sneer, you might have got a less aggressive response if you hadn't phrased it in a way that appeared rather hostile.
It doesn't
matter
at all who is presenting when. News channel schedules are utterly inconsequential in the big scheme of things.
But where is the harm of taking an interest in such things? It's certainly no more weird than some of the other things discussed on this forum. Each to their own, etc.
If your original question was motivated by mere curiosity and not a desire to sneer, you might have got a less hostile response if you hadn't phrased it in a way that appeared rather hostile.
Thank you for your answer.
This was my original question:
"Can I ask a question that, no doubt, many others will be wondering too:
'So what?'"
There was no desire to sneer, no hostility. Please someone point out where the wish to sneer is in those 2 lines.
Well although it's hard to discern tone of voice from plain text, I think "so what?" sounds more hostile than curious, especially when you have previously posted critical messages in this thread describing its contents as "ludicrus nonsence" [sic] amongst other things.
So I don't think it's surprising that you got the response that you did.
I couldn't care less how he phrased his irrelevant and petty comments.
I can't understand the motivation of somebody who takes time to register on a TV presentation forum only to call it's members 'fanatic' and therefore abuse the very nature on which this forum is founded.
You do not know me, 'Dog' so please do not label people because they take an individual interest in something seemingly off the wall.
And if you wish to align yourself with the psycho who after 400odd 'fanatical' postings in this here forum (with the majority in this thread) decided to then abuse the very people with whom he had been discussing for 6 months, then go ahead.
I suggest you get something to sort out your lack of self-esteem and security, Dog. A TV forum is not the place to do it. There are real people out there to sneer at.
Now please let us get on with our oddities, before you waste any more of my time.
I'm beginning to think that whoever entered the EPG data for this weekend on the News Channel got confused between Hannah Stewart-Jones and Alastair
Stewart
and Sian
Jones
I'm beginning to think that whoever entered the EPG data for this weekend on the News Channel got confused between Hannah Stewart-Jones and Alastair
Stewart
and Sian
Jones
lol yes. I thought Alistair and Sian would have been good but now we may never know.
I'm beginning to think that whoever entered the EPG data for this weekend on the News Channel got confused between Hannah Stewart-Jones and Alastair
Stewart
and Sian
Jones
LOL! How did whoever manage to make that mistake.
The 4pm bulletin on Monday says something like "2004 ITV News 1600" as well!
I'm beginning to think that whoever entered the EPG data for this weekend on the News Channel got confused between Hannah Stewart-Jones and Alastair
Stewart
and Sian
Jones
I did doubt we would see Alastair and Sian on together this weekend, but this is certainly a different mistake! How to they enter the data, is someone simply handed the surnames and they then fill in the forename, or something?