Total Moronic BBC Scheduling

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:32:19 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:03:55 +0100, Zathras
wrote:

The point I made about the BBC not being solely in existence to pamper
to the majority appears to have been missed.

It was answered, but you snipped it.

No you didn't..you don't know what the BBC is, you just bleated on as
if it was some kind of failed democracy and made a hilarious
comparison to deregulated buses!! I simply stated a fact that you
appear unable to accept.

I'm not going to reply to
all your points individually suffice to say that I disagree with them
all.

Your choice, but you lose the argument thereby.

LOL - how so?. What happened over the weekend was exactly as I would
have wanted and expected and I argued that it was the correct way for
the BBC to deal with the situation it found itself in. If there are
losers here, strangely, I don't feel like one..

In any case, assuming you're correct and I've lost the argument, how
should I proceed at such terrible news? Slit my wrists, stay in a
darkened room for a year, enter a Monastery? On second thoughts, I
might just pour a drink and watch my recording of Question Time from
last night because the BBC have, outrageously, given some minority
party a platform. If the recording failed, there's always Top Gear on
Dave for entertainment..

--
Z

Java Jive ] said:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:09:20 +0100, Zathras
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:32:19 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

No you didn't..you don't know what the BBC is, you just bleated on as
if it was some kind of failed democracy and made a hilarious
comparison to deregulated buses!! I simply stated a fact that you
appear unable to accept.

"""
But further on you talk about your opinion being worth as much as
mine, which by logical extension must mean that the opinion of the
majority who wanted to watch the scheduled broadcasts should weigh
more than the minority who wanted to watch F1Q, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM
ALREADY HAD ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF WATCHING IT ANYWAY!
"""

Your choice, but you lose the argument thereby.

LOL - how so?.

Because you haven't come up with a successful argument.

In any case, assuming you're correct and I've lost the argument, how
should I proceed at such terrible news? Slit my wrists, stay in a
darkened room for a year, enter a Monastery? On second thoughts, I
might just pour a drink and watch my recording of Question Time from
last night because the BBC have, outrageously, given some minority
party a platform. If the recording failed, there's always Top Gear on
Dave for entertainment..

I'm not interested, that's entirely up to you.

Nah, you just want the last word. :-)

Java Jive wrote:
I don't seem to be any different from you in that respect ...

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:13:58 +0100, Yellow
wrote:

Nah, you just want the last word. :-)

But where's the last word when you top-post?

André Coutanche

Java Jive ] said:

I don't seem to be any different from you in that respect ...

Not really as I shut up about 20 posts back when it became clear that
never of us was going to be persuaded by each other's arguments,
choosing not even to reply your final insult. You, by contrast, still
seem determined to have the final word on the topic regardless of what
anyone else has to say.

But don't let me stop you - it's amusing - and I really really won't be
posting to the thread again, I just couldn't help myself just now. Put
it down to depressing lack of self control. :-)


On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:13:58 +0100, Yellow
wrote:

Nah, you just want the last word. :-)

André Coutanche ] said:

Java Jive wrote:
I don't seem to be any different from you in that respect ...

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:13:58 +0100, Yellow
wrote:

Nah, you just want the last word. :-)

But where's the last word when you top-post?

André Coutanche

At the top?

:-D

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:01:21 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:09:20 +0100, Zathras
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:32:19 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

No you didn't..you don't know what the BBC is, you just bleated on as
if it was some kind of failed democracy and made a hilarious
comparison to deregulated buses!! I simply stated a fact that you
appear unable to accept.

"""
But further on you talk about your opinion being worth as much as
mine, which by logical extension must mean that the opinion of the
majority who wanted to watch the scheduled broadcasts should weigh
more than the minority who wanted to watch F1Q, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM
ALREADY HAD ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF WATCHING IT ANYWAY!
"""

I disagree. Are you aware of the difference between opinions and
facts?

Your choice, but you lose the argument thereby.

LOL - how so?.

Because you haven't come up with a successful argument.

Read the BBC Charter. The answer you seek is there.

In any case, assuming you're correct and I've lost the argument, how
should I proceed at such terrible news? Slit my wrists, stay in a
darkened room for a year, enter a Monastery? On second thoughts, I
might just pour a drink and watch my recording of Question Time from
last night because the BBC have, outrageously, given some minority
party a platform. If the recording failed, there's always Top Gear on
Dave for entertainment..

I'm not interested, that's entirely up to you.

Whoosh (again). I mean, good grief..you cannot even spot when I'm
saying that to you. Was my sarcasm that subtle???!

--
Z

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:20:50 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:40:10 +0100, Zathras
wrote:

I disagree. Are you aware of the difference between opinions and
facts?

You don't seem to realise that your arguments contradict each other.

Maybe because I'm not 'interpreting' them as you are?

If I accept as a fact, as you claimed, that your opinion is worth the
same as mine, or indeed presumably anyone else's, then the rest
follows logically.

...*your* logic..

The difference between opinions and facts isn't
relevant.

In my opinion, your opinion and mine are merely equal opinions, of
perhaps little or even no value. Facts altered by opinion are called
fiction. This matters as my initial contribution to this thread was a
simple fact that my subsequent opinion hasn't changed.

I doubt the BBC Charter says anything about your particular inability
to come up with a self-consistent set of arguments.

If that's news to you, I must have made a serious mistake in thinking
you were well informed. Can I suggest that the Charter might shed some
light on the role of a PSB? It might help clear up where you're
getting confused. On second thoughts, you might not understand it..

My first contribution to this thread was fact..and it still is,
regardless of your feeble attempts to steer the debate elsewhere.

Whoosh (again). I mean, good grief..you cannot even spot when I'm
saying that to you. Was my sarcasm that subtle???!

Ditto!

LOL..next..

--
Z

snip even more waffle

Feel free to scientifically and logically analyse my use of the word
'yawn'..

--
Z