The Real PapaBear
-
Posts
2,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by The Real PapaBear
-
The Sopranos, The Wire, Treme, Carnivale, Deadwood, Borgen, En Grenage ('Spiral' in English), Heimat (the best thing ever made for TV, imho), The Shield, The West Wing, Baltimore - Life on The Street, Nurse Jackie, The Thick of it (yes, BBC production, I know), NYPD Blue, Wallander - probably missed a couple, but you get the drift. Inaccurate to suggest the BBC doesn't produce quality TV of the highest quality? Really? Hmmm. Well, perhaps you can give me some examples of TV of the highest quality which the BBC has produced? Honestly, I'm keen to know. As for radio, it's OK. Radio 4 can be good, 5 Live used to be good about a decade ago, 6 Music is excellent, but generally I find the radio in France and Germany to be better Eh??? !!! ?? The HBO model not only doesn't make the case for the BBC it shows why the BBC is worse than useless. HBO makes quality programmes. Of that there is no doubt and it's something we can all agree on. HBO runs its own subscription cable channel based on these quality programmes and also sells these quality shows to other networks. HBO relies on the reputation for quality to attract subscribers and has to continue to produce quality to keep those subscribers and to sell to foreign networks. HBO also takes advertising on its channel and, because the shows are invariably good quality, other networks, can charge advertisers a premium when they show HBO shows. HBO may not depend on direct advertising to survive, but it does depend on direct and indirect advertising to prosper. HBO, in short, produces quality to thrive. (HBO is undoubtedly the top of the heap, but there are others such as 'Showtime' that can produce some very good stuff.) The BBC otoh produces mediocrity to survive. Any show like 'The Thick of It' is the exception that proves the rule. Now, that I can agree with - the last bit I mean
-
Sorry, I'm still none the wiser. I looked to me that you were comparing BBC documentaries with the lack thereof on commercial media and suggesting that those made by the BBC were well researched and impartial. I'll give you Gardener's World and Coast - in fact, anything which involves things sprouting, swimming or swinging from branches, the BBC does very well. But my point about HBO, which I would suggest is very relevant, is that it shows a universal imperative, whereby if you produce quality, people will buy it. HBO is made in America but it is sold all over the world, A commercial company producing the best TV ever made; whereas the BBC, which should be regularly producing TV of the highest quality fails to do so time and time again.
-
Quite. So we can add 'immoral' and 'illegal' to 'inaccurate', 'partial' and 'improperly researched'.
-
Amms, are you seriously suggesting that BBC documentaries are accurate, impartial and properly researched? Seriously? As for the quality of the TV Programmes they produce, can you point me in the direction of anything which was not a period costume drama that has been worth watching? (I exclude the recent Peaky Blinders, which was quite excellent). If you want to see how commercial TV can produce the highest levels of quality, look at just about anything from HBO.
-
what a fanny. Does he actually realise people can see him? loved the "Scottish accent and Irish clothing"
-
You bought her a Renault? Seriously? FFS, mate, serve her the divorce papers now and get it over with.
-
No safer place to get rid of it, bud; it's not as if any western media is going to go looking for it. Also, noting your parenthesis, it's an odd word,:'insurgents', don't you think? Didn't they once upon a time used to be called 'The Resistance' or 'Partisans' ?
-
Templeton will join the list of billy-big-baws from minor clubs who thought that they had made it when they joined Rangers - whereas real Rangers players understand that joining Rangers is only the beginning. Templeton seems to think that he's too good for Div 2, or whatever the fuck we're calling it this week, but fails to realise that he's not playing for Div 2, he's playing for Rangers.
-
Well, they stopped actually reporting news quite a while ago, so they may as well spend their time creating it.
-
there you are, mate. Fixed that for you - what you might call a BBC edit.
-
They may well have a response ready, but if enough people complain, their masters in London will eventually start getting sick of having to spend so much time dealing with the problems caused by BBC Scotland. If anybody wants to use this feel free: It would be useful, if you do to edit and change the text somewhat, so that they have to answer each complaint, rather than firing out a standard template. Dear Sir / Madam Ref the article above, par 5, line 1: "It is the first time a team in Rangers colours will be in a national final since 2011, when they beat Celtic to win the League Cup." I am writing to complain about the arbitrary and deliberately offensive use of the phrase "a team in Rangers colours" to describe Rangers. The inference is clearly that the colours are being worn by a different team, i.e. club, and that therefore the club is not the same club as it was two years ago - a fallacious claim which has been disproved by all of footballs governing bodies as well as the Scottish courts. This is clearly little more than a gratuitous attempt at delegitimising Rangers and antagonising Rangers supporters who, need I remind you, constitute a huge percentage of the license fee paying public in Scotland and it can only be seen as the latest in a series of ongoing attacks on the club by BBC Scotland. BBC Scotland has quite a shameful history of falsification, dissemination of untruths and bias with regard to Rangers; from the deliberate re-editing of the Ally McCosist news conference (to make it appear that he was sneering at sectarianism) to the recent claim by Jim Spence that Rangers had died, for which he was suspended. I would, therefore, appreciate it if you would give me an example of this phrase ever having been used before to describe a team and, failing to do so, provide an explanation as to why it was used in this instance. Your sincerely
-
done - good cause
-
it kinda is about what's right and wrong
-
That is good. Highly recommend the magazine.
-
chilledbear kindly posted some video highlights of our demolition of the best team in the world at the time, the 1972 Bayern Munich. It's instructive to listen to the songs and chants of that time compared to those from today.
-
The SFA have a legal duty to carry out their business to the best of their ability (stop sniggering in the back!) so you can't really blame them for acting like a possé of incompetent twats, if that's the best they can do. The press, however, decided to jump aboard the good ship "Kick the Huns to Death" when it left port in fair weather. The Press and the anti-Rangers assassination squads are, if not the same thing, then occupying the same ground with no way to leave it. The media, with two journalist exceptions, decided that our death and humiliation would make for a better story than the criminality that lead up to our downfall.
-
only on Gersnet would a post which begins with the Soviet national anthem and then proceeds via Leon Trotsky, Karl Marx, Douglas Bader, Jim Spence and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to end up referencing Stewart Reagan be bumped in favour of one which begins: "Christmas Day became an official established holiday in Scotland for the first time in 1972". Honest to God, the only place you get writing like this is The New Yorker magazine.
-
is that Martin O'neil sitting beside the Davie Weir lookalike in the red top?
-
spot on. With them it's a poisonous mixture of religion, culture, inferiority complex and unarticulated sectarianism. Perhaps the greatest difference between our support and theirs is that the level at which the irrational element of the fan base begins is higher up the social scale for them than it is for us.
-
perhaps the most enjoyable thread since 14 Feb 2012? One day all fora will be like this.
-
www.ba.com
-
and if some people support Rangers for idiotic reasons, should we deem those reasons to be less idiotic because the people who have them are Rangers supporters?
-
Firstly, the picture; no, I wouldn't expect to see that now or under the Taliban. What's your point? As to the rest, you think that the Taliban who fought the Soviets were less Islamist than those fighting us today, although you have no evidence for this. You also think that the Taliban fund their war against us using the proceeds from drug sales, although you have no evidence for this. You see my problem here, dB? I'm giving you evidence to support my claims whereas you are happy to make statements without any supporting evidence at all. And not only that, but to continue to make statements in the face of evidence to the contrary. And not only that, but are happy to admit doing so. It's very hard to have a rational debate under those circumstances. One of the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan was almost certainly drugs as even a cursory examination of US/CIA involvement in drug trafficking would indicate.
-
Fair enough, mate. It's all about opinions.
-
Please don't feed the trolls. Thank you.