« Topics
1234...8910
Whataday7,176 posts since 13 Sep 2001
HTV Wales Wales Today
I'm not saying there weren't similarities. I could probably take an edition of GMTV and point out a number of similarities but that's not the point.

The point is, it wasn't in the writer's thinking.


No, that's YOUR point. That's the point YOU'VE raised.

MY point was:

I haven't really seen much of C4 Daily but it's very The Day Today isn't it.


And you argued with that, even though you later twisted the argument and ended up agreeing with my point that there are similarities.

If you change the argument to fit your opinion... chances are you're going to win that argument.
3
Inspector Sands10,632 posts since 25 Aug 2004

No, there's the truth, based on opinions, and the truth based on actual evidence. I always go for evidence, the more solid, the better. Circumstantial evidence, carries far less weight.

It's a simple concept, perhaps you ought to try it sometime.

After you....
Your only 'evidence' seems to be that one person was in Bristol and the other was in Glasgow in the late 80's Rolling Eyes


The thing is that unless you ask everyone involved in The Day Today you'll never know for certain that it wasn't an influence (and even then it's so long ago that they might not remember). However we do know for certain that they had access to Channel 4 and that there's a good chance they saw their breakfast show at some point in it's 3 year run. We also know for certain that there are some people who were involved in both programmes.

It's not something we've just 'cooked up' (to quote your Tweet from earlier)


It can't ever be definitively proved either way, but it cannot be said that it definitely wasn't an influence. You can't prove a negative
1
Nicky (previously BBCNicky) 2,896 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
There's the truth and the Cityprod version of the truth which matches his opinion.


No, there's the truth, based on opinions, and the truth based on actual evidence. I always go for evidence, the more solid, the better. Circumstantial evidence, carries far less weight.

It's a simple concept, perhaps you ought to try it sometime.


I really detest how you make it your mission to disrupt interesting, enjoyable threads by arguing for the sake of arguing. No point, no logic, no sense. It's pathetic and tedious.
5
cityprod1,259 posts since 3 Oct 2005
Westcountry Spotlight

No, there's the truth, based on opinions, and the truth based on actual evidence. I always go for evidence, the more solid, the better. Circumstantial evidence, carries far less weight.

It's a simple concept, perhaps you ought to try it sometime.

After you....
Your only 'evidence' seems to be that one person was in Bristol and the other was in Glasgow in the late 80's Rolling Eyes


Err, that's not what I said, I said...

Quote:
Chris Morris was still producing "No Known Cure" for BBC Radio Bristol, and "The Chris Morris Show" for BBC GLR at the time. Armando Iannucci was still at BBC Radio Scotland producing "No' The Archie McPherson Show".


Both guys were producing radio, ironically both producing similar style satirical programming. Chris Morris was still at GLR in early 1993, so he didn't spend that whole year working on The Day Today, he was still producing radio. Without somebody thinking that On The Hour could transfer to TV, they'd still be producing satirical radio. Radio was their home medium, their first language almost.

In fact, he brought back On The Hour as a podcast in 2008, the episodes he produced are still online. Although he's done lots of work off camera, such as directing episodes of Veep, it's my belief that he's at heart a radio person first and foremost.

Quote:
It's not something we've just 'cooked up' (to quote your Tweet from earlier)


Are you kidding me? It's about as cooked up as claiming Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Someone could see similarities, and they thought that was enough evidence to make a spurious claim. Not even remotely close. It's well and truly cooked up.
London Lite7,086 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London
While I don't doubt cityprod actually believes what he's saying, the simple fact is that he's rail roaded what was a sensible conversation into rhetoric, arguments and sniping remarks when he doesn't get his way.

This isn't a 20 year old Dr Who fan who can be forgiven for youthful exuberance, but a middle aged man who spits his dummy out when people don't agree with him or can see the holes in his arguments.

As members, we have a choice, continue to reply and get nowhere or simply ignore him. The latter may save on our blood pressure.
cityprod1,259 posts since 3 Oct 2005
Westcountry Spotlight
I don't know how it started but your numerous posts in this thread and the London Live thread are clearly off topic and no longer adding to the conversation.


Well, in other thread, it only went off-topic when young mr Bilky decided to take a cheap shot at me. I've already explained why things went wrong here. Making spurious claims based on circumstantial evidence at best, is not going to engender a favourable reaction from me.

You want less anger, then don;'t say patently stupid things, it's quite simple really.
cityprod1,259 posts since 3 Oct 2005
Westcountry Spotlight
While I don't doubt cityprod actually believes what he's saying, the simple fact is that he's rail roaded what was a sensible conversation into rhetoric, arguments and sniping remarks when he doesn't get his way.


No, the reality is much simpler than that. You make stupid unprovable statements that don''t stand up to even a cursory examination of the evidence, you will get called out on it. You don't want the anger, don't say stupid things. It's quite simple really.
London Lite7,086 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London


You want less anger, then don;'t say patently stupid things, it's quite simple really.


Pot, kettle. And once again you're digging yourself a hole.


Seriously? Pot, kettle, black? That's the best response you have?

All you're proving is you have no argument.

*drops the mic*


I don't have an argument because there isn't one. It's been explained clearly by people with a lot more knowledge and experience than you.

Considering you've ignored and not taken on board feedback elsewhere from media professionals, who am I going to believe? A bitter community radio presenter who can't stand the fact nobody listens to what he says as it's skewed towards your beliefs or media professionals and enthusiasts who actually listen and admit when they get it wrong?
2
cityprod1,259 posts since 3 Oct 2005
Westcountry Spotlight

Pot, kettle. And once again you're digging yourself a hole.


Seriously? Pot, kettle, black? That's the best response you have?

All you're proving is you have no argument.

*drops the mic*


I don't have an argument because there isn't one. It's been explained clearly by people with a lot more knowledge and experience than you.

Considering you've ignored and not taken on board feedback elsewhere from media professionals, who am I going to believe? A bitter community radio presenter who can't stand the fact nobody listens to what he says as it's skewed towards your beliefs or media professionals and enthusiasts who actually listen and admit when they get it wrong?


I don't know, because there's no bitter community radio presenter here. Also, I twist my theories to suit the facts, not facts to suit theories.

Whatever image of me you have in your head, is informed only by your faulty standards, not by what I'm saying. Where you're coming from is so far away from where I am, that trying to discuss something with you, and others like you, feels more like a chore than a discussion with equals. You see, I've been where you come from, and that's a place I never want to go back to, that's how damaging I see it as.
No further posts are being accepted for this topic