and if they are in such debt why did they pay £10m for extremely delayed rights to one bloody film!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not just shown earlier by Sky, but by a DVD player, VCR or cinema near you!
Ummm - again, don't believe the media hype over the price paid for said film.
It'd be really nice if you managed to form an opinion of your own, instead of reading and believing all the rubbish that's written in the Mail and the Guardian.
and if they are in such debt why did they pay £10m for extremely delayed rights to one bloody film!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not just shown earlier by Sky, but by a DVD player, VCR or cinema near you!
Ummm - again, don't believe the media hype over the price paid for said film.
It'd be really nice if you managed to form an opinion of your own, instead of reading and believing all the rubbish that's written in the Mail and the Guardian.
For the record, I never read The Mail, and only occasionally read The Guardian. Although if I did read The Guardian more I expect I would be likely to form a pretty good impression of the BBC, since they are probably one of the biggest supporters of the BBC among the national newspapers. They are renowned for being generally critical of ITV and Sky.
It'd be really nice if you managed to form an opinion of your own, instead of reading and believing all the rubbish that's written in the Mail and the Guardian.
You'd rather that everyone believe one of your one sided edicts ? Hardly the most rounded and open minded contributer on the form, with every post sounding like a BBC press release.
You seem to be comparing, alledgelly, like for like.
BBC does infact have more sport than the others but that is not the question - quality over quantity surely?
Well, no the question you raised seemed to be over the quantity of sports. Since you so kindly quoted yourself, let's take another look:
ohwhatanit posted:
The statement that seems to have got a certain person into a state of orgasmic confusion is as follows:-
I said - "BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel"
Orgasmic confusion - I like that. It's got the air of an early teen trying to be an oratorical sophisticate, but who is stifled by his limited vocabulary. Classy.
The poor range of sports programmes... poor range... I'm sorry, but "poor range" has to be a quantitative criticism. If what you actually meant was "the range of incredibly poor sports on the BBC", then you should have said that. You do seem to have some difficulty expressing yourself properly.
ohwhatanit posted:
BBC LDN pointed out - "that the range of sports programming on the channel cannot be cited as the sole indicator for BBC standards dropping."
Where did I ever state that it was the SOLE indicator of BBC standards. You seem be making things up again Mr LDN and my opinion still is that the poor level of sport on BBC is imho an inidicator of the WHOLE quality of the BBC. Many big things are made up of smaller proportions.
That's very true, you didn't explicitly state that it is the sole indicator. However, it was strongly implied. Once again, it comes down to you failing to express yourself adequately, or - more likely - making it up as you go along to cover the fact that you're wrong. If you had intended to suggest that the "poor level of sport" was simply one of my indicators of broader reductions in BBC quality, then you should have said so. What you actually said was that BBC standards were slipping and this was proved by the poor range of sports programmes.
What I was trying to say, but which you have decided to ignore in favour of personal attack, is that "the poor range of sports programmes" as you see it does not prove anything of the sort in and of itself; you have since changed the meaning of what you were trying to say by suggesting that you meant that it was only one of many indicators of BBC performance... but
that isn't what you said in the first place - and that is my point
.
ohwhatanit posted:
I cant even be arsed replying to the rest of the stuff you have stated as I have better things to do with my life!
Evidently, that is a lie.
ohwhatanit posted:
I have never liked you and never will...
Believe me, I'm gonna need counselling to get over that bombshell.
ohwhatanit posted:
and am not wasting anymore time on you because im off out to enjoy life - you remember that LDN - real life, meeting people, having fun.
I do indeed remember - it's not difficult to when they're central to my life. However, these are all things that you clearly no nothing about; if you'd like to send me a private message, I can send you some advice, and slowly help you to integrate into society.
ohwhatanit posted:
Not skulking about on forums nit-picking peoples' posts and fritting your life away with such trivial matters.
Well, as Whitney Houston once said, "I learnt from the best, I learnt from you".
Now please, send me a private message if you'd like to continue this debate, but let's not get the thread closed because of your stupidity.
Only 4.5m people watched the football on ITV. Almost ebaten by Sky, which got a record 4m viewers watching the game live.
So this seems to show that
Anyone who is a big football fan watched it live on Sky, or would have gone to the pub
Few people watched it on terrestrial, maybe showing that the audience watching BBc 1 and ITV were not interested in the football, and maybe just needed a quich newsreport to give them the result.
From what I can tell, Silent Witness beat the football.
Only 4.5m people watched the football on ITV. Almost ebaten by Sky, which got a record 4m viewers watching the game live.
So this seems to show that
Anyone who is a big football fan watched it live on Sky, or would have gone to the pub
Few people watched it on terrestrial, maybe showing that the audience watching BBc 1 and ITV were not interested in the football, and maybe just needed a quich newsreport to give them the result.
From what I can tell, Silent Witness beat the football.
You mean the data "are" in, and from what I can tell I'm going to say what the bloody hell I like even though I can't use the data to prove anything one way or the other.
It'd be really nice if you managed to form an opinion of your own, instead of reading and believing all the rubbish that's written in the Mail and the Guardian.
You'd rather that everyone believe one of your one sided edicts ? Hardly the most rounded and open minded contributer on the form, with every post sounding like a BBC press release.
As much so as the propaganda on the Guardian website today about News Corp sueing the BBC over the satellite "overspill".
If anyone had any brain they'd work out it was because the BBC won't pay for Sky's encryption, and not concerns over copyright.
Only 4.5m people watched the football on ITV. Almost ebaten by Sky, which got a record 4m viewers watching the game live.
So this seems to show that
Anyone who is a big football fan watched it live on Sky, or would have gone to the pub
Few people watched it on terrestrial, maybe showing that the audience watching BBc 1 and ITV were not interested in the football, and maybe just needed a quich newsreport to give them the result.
From what I can tell, Silent Witness beat the football.
Actually, in terms of home viewers ITV beat Sky by 600,000 viewers (not counting the pub of course!)
Anyone who is a big football fan watched it live on Sky, or would have gone to the pub