Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcastscorrect?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:06:57 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
In "photographic film" the word "film" refers strictly to thin layer
(the film) of emulsion on the substrate.

In magnetic recording data is recorded on a thin layer of magnetic
material on a platter, or whatever. We could call that layer a "film".

We could, but we don't, and as far as I know, never have.

I was straining to make "film" fit. smile

Yes I did sort of recognise it as diabolic advocacy rather than part of a
sincere campaign in representation of your true feelings on the matter.
However I think we should be concerned at the casual way in which people
with no knowledge or concern for the details or the history simply trample
over useful distinctions that have real meanings, because of the danger
that it will eventually become impossible to talk about anything because
nobody will know what the words mean.

"My Hoover is an Electrolux"

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:42:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

No! No! No!

The resulting funeral would be MASSIVE.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:42:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

No! No! No!

The resulting funeral would be MASSIVE.

Yehbut, soon got over. So no more weddings divorces etc for the press to
waste several rain forests on ever again.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:53:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:42:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

No! No! No!

The resulting funeral would be MASSIVE.

Yehbut, soon got over. So no more weddings divorces etc for the press to
waste several rain forests on ever again.

You are thinking optimistically. Royal families can be replaced.

I'm sure Tony Blair would be available.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:53:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:42:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

No! No! No!

The resulting funeral would be MASSIVE.

Yehbut, soon got over. So no more weddings divorces etc for the press to
waste several rain forests on ever again.

I don't think so. Do you remember the "mourning" period for Diana?
That went on for years. Everything was cancelled, all the radio
stations started playing downbeat music -- it was a real pain.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:53:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:42:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

No! No! No!

The resulting funeral would be MASSIVE.

Yehbut, soon got over. So no more weddings divorces etc for the press to
waste several rain forests on ever again.

I don't think so. Do you remember the "mourning" period for Diana?
That went on for years. Everything was cancelled, all the radio
stations started playing downbeat music -- it was a real pain.

That day I was involved ina historical recreation at a Nation Trust
property. One mother didn't bring her daughter (one of the cast) because
"she (the mother) was so upset".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 at 10:14:09h +0100, Charles explained:

One mother didn't bring her daughter (one of the cast) because
"she (the mother) was so upset".

But that is in no way unsurprising or exceptional.

All it takes is the death of a major character on Eastenders or
Consternation Street to put thousands of people into a depressed
mood.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:27:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 at 10:14:09h +0100, Charles explained:

One mother didn't bring her daughter (one of the cast) because
"she (the mother) was so upset".

But that is in no way unsurprising or exceptional.

All it takes is the death of a major character on Eastenders or
Consternation Street to put thousands of people into a depressed
mood.

Trouble is that a depressed mood was almost inevitable, whether you
were directly affected or not, since many events were cancelled. I
remember my son was due to go on parade and he had been looking
forward to it for some time. It was cancelled out of "respect" but I
could not really see why this was necessary. You can't expect a
3-year old to understand.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:35:46 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:53:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:42:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?

If you did it before this Friday, a favour. ;-)

No! No! No!

The resulting funeral would be MASSIVE.

Yehbut, soon got over. So no more weddings divorces etc for the press to
waste several rain forests on ever again.

You are thinking optimistically. Royal families can be replaced.

I'm sure Tony Blair would be available.

I was hugely entertained to see he (and Brown) weren't invited to the
wedding, along with the Syrian ambassador. I was even more entertained
to see Thatcher WAS invited, seeing as the Queen reputedly hated her

"She acts more like the Queen than I do" (allegedly)