R2
Which I think I made quite clear in my first post. I think you've seen me around here long enough to know that I don't go over-mad on analysis (or even posting) but I did think it was a legitimate observation to post to a TV presentation forum.
I agree. After all we're hear to discuss television presentation and obviously find it interesting otherwise we wouldn't spend our time in the forum talking about different presentation on television.
As for discussing the presentation of BBC News on Dr Who, you would have expected the bright red Breaking News strap on as well as the ticker as opposed to the usual information bar.
Neil Green posted:
Uncle Bruce posted:
I simply don't think this is something that anyone, beyond the assembled anoraks here, would have noticed.
Which I think I made quite clear in my first post. I think you've seen me around here long enough to know that I don't go over-mad on analysis (or even posting) but I did think it was a legitimate observation to post to a TV presentation forum.
I agree. After all we're hear to discuss television presentation and obviously find it interesting otherwise we wouldn't spend our time in the forum talking about different presentation on television.
As for discussing the presentation of BBC News on Dr Who, you would have expected the bright red Breaking News strap on as well as the ticker as opposed to the usual information bar.
UB
Which I think I made quite clear in my first post. I think you've seen me around here long enough to know that I don't go over-mad on analysis (or even posting) but I did think it was a legitimate observation to post to a TV presentation forum.
Neil, don't take my comments as some kind of attack on you. They weren't.
Neil Green posted:
Uncle Bruce posted:
I simply don't think this is something that anyone, beyond the assembled anoraks here, would have noticed.
Which I think I made quite clear in my first post. I think you've seen me around here long enough to know that I don't go over-mad on analysis (or even posting) but I did think it was a legitimate observation to post to a TV presentation forum.
Neil, don't take my comments as some kind of attack on you. They weren't.
BB
Which I think I made quite clear in my first post. I think you've seen me around here long enough to know that I don't go over-mad on analysis (or even posting) but I did think it was a legitimate observation to post to a TV presentation forum.
Neil, don't take my comments as some kind of attack on you. They weren't.
I don't think Neil was taking it as an attack on him. Neil can correct me if I'm wrong, but it looked like he was demonstrating the more mature way of suggesting that no-one outside the Forum would have noticed the minutiae of the news presentation, but how at the same time that fact doesn't somehow invalidate the discussion here, in this place where presentation is discussed.
As Neil says, he's not nuts on analysing stuff to death, and he recognises that most people would have taken the news inserts and what they were - merely incidental and inconsequential additions to the programme. But notice how Neil doesn't see the need to píss all over everyone in his comments, and can still appreciate that some people might want to discuss such things.
It's regrettable that you can't move beyond your bitterness and allow people to enjoy things that don't engage you directly.
Uncle Bruce posted:
Neil Green posted:
Uncle Bruce posted:
I simply don't think this is something that anyone, beyond the assembled anoraks here, would have noticed.
Which I think I made quite clear in my first post. I think you've seen me around here long enough to know that I don't go over-mad on analysis (or even posting) but I did think it was a legitimate observation to post to a TV presentation forum.
Neil, don't take my comments as some kind of attack on you. They weren't.
I don't think Neil was taking it as an attack on him. Neil can correct me if I'm wrong, but it looked like he was demonstrating the more mature way of suggesting that no-one outside the Forum would have noticed the minutiae of the news presentation, but how at the same time that fact doesn't somehow invalidate the discussion here, in this place where presentation is discussed.
As Neil says, he's not nuts on analysing stuff to death, and he recognises that most people would have taken the news inserts and what they were - merely incidental and inconsequential additions to the programme. But notice how Neil doesn't see the need to píss all over everyone in his comments, and can still appreciate that some people might want to discuss such things.
It's regrettable that you can't move beyond your bitterness and allow people to enjoy things that don't engage you directly.
CA
I agree - I couldn't care less, quite frankly.
I don't even particularly like Dr. Who.
But I think we have all got to realise that this forum is all about noticing crappy and pointless details that the average member of the public would not... ALL internet fora exist to cater for the specific needs and interests of those who take part in it.
It is boring in my view, it is pointless... but for God's sake, leave them to it.
Uncle Bruce posted:
Oh dear. Cat - thanks for the vote of confidence.
I'm actually trying, in my usual fashion, to make a point here.
I simply don't think this is something that anyone, beyond the assembled anoraks here, would have noticed.
We're almost going on about this as if Granny Smith would have seen it on the TV and screamed in horror: "My God, that isn't 4:3 safe." Seconds later she would have keeled over having had a heart attack.
I didn't even notice when I watched the show, and it took reading this to find out.
I'm not disinterested, I'm merely amazed there is so much fuss over something that was on screen for barely seconds.
I'm actually trying, in my usual fashion, to make a point here.
I simply don't think this is something that anyone, beyond the assembled anoraks here, would have noticed.
We're almost going on about this as if Granny Smith would have seen it on the TV and screamed in horror: "My God, that isn't 4:3 safe." Seconds later she would have keeled over having had a heart attack.
I didn't even notice when I watched the show, and it took reading this to find out.
I'm not disinterested, I'm merely amazed there is so much fuss over something that was on screen for barely seconds.
I agree - I couldn't care less, quite frankly.
I don't even particularly like Dr. Who.
But I think we have all got to realise that this forum is all about noticing crappy and pointless details that the average member of the public would not... ALL internet fora exist to cater for the specific needs and interests of those who take part in it.
It is boring in my view, it is pointless... but for God's sake, leave them to it.
R2
I wouldn't describe it as that, it's just the fact that this is a topic we're interested in and subsequently talk about it. It's just the same as talking about cars. I couldn't care less what engine it had or what it's top speed is (probably because there are speed limits) yet people still talk about cars because they're interested in it. However I don't go in and start discrediting people for their interests.
It is boring in my view, it is pointless... but for God's sake, leave them to it.
The last part of this comment is what I'm saying all though I don't understand what the first part is meant to mean. Are you commenting on television presentation (unlikely considering you've had over 1600 posts) or just this thread that you class as boring? Either way though, it is a contradiction of you saying 'leave them to it'.
cat posted:
But I think we have all got to realise that this forum is all about noticing crappy and pointless details that the average member of the public would not.
I wouldn't describe it as that, it's just the fact that this is a topic we're interested in and subsequently talk about it. It's just the same as talking about cars. I couldn't care less what engine it had or what it's top speed is (probably because there are speed limits) yet people still talk about cars because they're interested in it. However I don't go in and start discrediting people for their interests.
cat posted:
It is boring in my view, it is pointless... but for God's sake, leave them to it.
The last part of this comment is what I'm saying all though I don't understand what the first part is meant to mean. Are you commenting on television presentation (unlikely considering you've had over 1600 posts) or just this thread that you class as boring? Either way though, it is a contradiction of you saying 'leave them to it'.
UB
Still doesn't explain how the full length of the widescreen super appeared on screen, in proportion, on a 4:3 screen.
The full length super appeared on the full length of a TV because it was mocked up by someone in TV drama - and, say this in hushed tones, it wasn't really News 24 ...
BBC LDN posted:
Still doesn't explain how the full length of the widescreen super appeared on screen, in proportion, on a 4:3 screen.
The full length super appeared on the full length of a TV because it was mocked up by someone in TV drama - and, say this in hushed tones, it wasn't really News 24 ...
IS
Still doesn't explain how the full length of the widescreen super appeared on screen, in proportion, on a 4:3 screen.
The full length super appeared on the full length of a TV because it was mocked up by someone in TV drama - and, say this in hushed tones, it wasn't really News 24 ...
WHAT!?
Isonstine
Founding member
Uncle Bruce posted:
BBC LDN posted:
Still doesn't explain how the full length of the widescreen super appeared on screen, in proportion, on a 4:3 screen.
The full length super appeared on the full length of a TV because it was mocked up by someone in TV drama - and, say this in hushed tones, it wasn't really News 24 ...
WHAT!?
UB
Yep, bet that bowled you over. It was a fictional TV show. Scrape yourself up off the floor, James ...
BB
Incredible. QED. All hail to the killjoy: you've successfully ended the discussion. Perhaps now you'll fûck off and stop being such a tiresome arse. You can't see the point of the discussion, yet you keep coming back for more. You're aggrieved that such a thread exists, yet you choose to return time and again. Well you've brought it all to a close with your impeccable logic - congratulations.
So, now that you have decreed that issues of TV presentation aren't worthy of discussion, what would you like us to discuss on this TV presentation forum that would be worthy of your approval?
Uncle Bruce posted:
Yep, bet that bowled you over. It was a fictional TV show. Scrape yourself up off the floor, James ...
Incredible. QED. All hail to the killjoy: you've successfully ended the discussion. Perhaps now you'll fûck off and stop being such a tiresome arse. You can't see the point of the discussion, yet you keep coming back for more. You're aggrieved that such a thread exists, yet you choose to return time and again. Well you've brought it all to a close with your impeccable logic - congratulations.
So, now that you have decreed that issues of TV presentation aren't worthy of discussion, what would you like us to discuss on this TV presentation forum that would be worthy of your approval?
UB
Dramarama. Do I get the impression this offensive tirade has some history attached?
All I'm doing is expressing my view here, LDN. If you don't like it, you don't have to stoop to the level of telling me to 'fcuk off'.
BBC LDN posted:
Perhaps now you'll fûck off and stop being such a tiresome arse. You can't see the point of the discussion, yet you keep coming back for more.
Dramarama. Do I get the impression this offensive tirade has some history attached?
All I'm doing is expressing my view here, LDN. If you don't like it, you don't have to stoop to the level of telling me to 'fcuk off'.