I'm glad you agree, so any further comment by you was "indeed irrelevant," so why add more?
It was relevant to your question about "making a federal case" out of it. If you're going to take that line, you'll have to accept that some of your own comments aren't strictly relevant.
That wasn't an episode of Doctor Who, it was a segment on a Jim'll Fix It, where in a kid got to play a scene with the doctor.
Well, let's not nitpick, and take the original question in the spirit it was intended rather than its literal wording.
Yeah, that definitely doesn't qualify as an "episode", and it's apparently not "canon" either (*) but it's still a Doctor Who related thing that supposedly features Savile (unfortunately) (**), and probably the thing that he vaguely remembered hearing about.
(*) Though apparently some people with too much time on their hands have tried to rationalise it as being canonical anyway. :eek: Sci-fi fans are seemingly obsessed with "canon"...
(**) I believe he supposedly appears at the end. But since BBC Worldwide blocked the only complete copy of the original I could find on YouTube ("Thanks" guys... :mad:), I don't know if this is a fourth-wall breaking thing or not. I'm not sure I care either...!
It was relevant to your question about "making a federal case" out of it. If you're going to take that line, you'll have to accept that some of your own comments aren't strictly relevant.
You've lost me there, there were none in this thread, but I hardly think it matters.
You've lost me there, there were none in this thread, but I hardly think it matters.
Well, how about "If you start wanting to suggest there's a significant and important difference between the kids' TV channels, then I think you're watching too much kids' television."
How was that relevant, precisely? Not to mention it was provocative.
Well, how about "If you start wanting to suggest there's a significant and important difference between the kids' TV channels, then I think you're watching too much kids' television."
How was that relevant, precisely? Not to mention it was provocative.
This is like pulling teeth, in the context of what I first posted, whichever channel it was, even if it were BBC1, it was of no significance to the point I was making.
Try reading my first post again.
I bow to your obvious in-depth knowledge of the different children's TV channels.
This is like pulling teeth, in the context of what I first posted, whichever channel it was, even if it were BBC1, it was of no significance to the point I was making.
Try reading my first post again.
I bow to your obvious in-depth knowledge of the different children's TV channels.
See, you're still at it. You can't type out a post without putting in a condescending little sneer. Then you act all innocent when people get annoyed.
See, you're still at it. You can't type out a post without putting in a condescending little sneer. Then you act all innocent when people get annoyed.
Well... If you must keep bangin' on, after I'd said enough times, that whatever channel it was on, was immaterial to the point I was making in my original post.
What did you expect?
I'm not acting innocent, just expressing mild exasperation at the unwillingness shown to accept that fact.
It really is of no consequence on which channel it was shown even if it were BBC1 as I said.
Well... If you must keep bangin' on, after I'd said enough times, that whatever channel it was on, was immaterial to the point I was making in my original post.
What did you expect?
I'm not acting innocent, just expressing mild exasperation at the unwillingness shown to accept that fact.
It really is of no consequence on which channel it was shown even if it were BBC1 as I said.
But, as I've pointed out, the entire argument arose from the fact that, when your mistake was pointed out, instead of just saying it wasn't relevant, your response was a cheap sneer. Had you been able to resist that temptation, the argument wouldn't have occurred.
But, as I've pointed out, the entire argument arose from the fact that, when your mistake was pointed out, instead of just saying it wasn't relevant, your response was a cheap sneer. Had you been able to resist that temptation, the argument wouldn't have occurred.
But, as I've pointed out, the entire argument arose from the fact that, when your mistake was pointed out, instead of just saying it wasn't relevant, your response was a cheap sneer. Had you been able to resist that temptation, the argument wouldn't have occurred.
Hmm..
I think enough people had made the point about which channel the programme was on, which wasn't relative to my point, for most not to be bothered about it.... but then there's you.
What's up?
Don't like to be told what you usually do?
Tell me again, when you last started a topic on an actual programme rather than nit-picking the opinions on TV of others?
Thought so, we've drawn a blank again.
As i have told you before, i am very busy and tend to record programming and watch it at a later date. By the time i get round to watching things a thread is already up on DS.
I have started a few threads though.
Doesn't change the fact you can't accept you got something wrong.
As i have told you before, i am very busy and tend to record programming and watch it at a later date. By the time i get round to watching things a thread is already up on DS.
I have started a few threads though.
Doesn't change the fact you can't accept you got something wrong.
Just accept it, or "scroll down".....
That excuse doesn't fly as many people start threads on programmes shown the previous day or even earlier.
So I take that as a "no" then, as you've made similar posts as this in response to me asking the same question, but never provided any evidence.
You prefer to nit-pick other contributors posts rather than add anything worthwhile.
That excuse doesn't fly as many people start threads on programmes shown the previous day or even earlier.
So I take that as a "no" then, as you've made similar posts as this in response to me asking the same question, but never provided any evidence.
You prefer to nit-pick other contributors posts rather than add anything worthwhile.
I didn't say it was "No", merely that by the time i get round to watching things there is ALREADY a thread on DS about it.
That means a new thread will get merged with an existing one.
So, it's good practice to do a search for the existing one and then contribute to that.
Unfortunately, that means that someone will have posted something untrue, or just plain wrong in it, and that needs to be put right before proper, mature, debate can take place.
A thread about a row about a thread about a subject that was a non-event to start with.
How entertaining
Get a room, really.
Can we get back on topic and leave the intellectual masturbation about who was at fault? You do understand that that's never going to be resolved either way, right?
Comments
I vaguely remember hearing of this before, and a bit of quick searching turned up what was apparently called "A Fix with Sontarans".
It was relevant to your question about "making a federal case" out of it. If you're going to take that line, you'll have to accept that some of your own comments aren't strictly relevant.
That wasn't an episode of Doctor Who, it was a segment on a Jim'll Fix It, where in a kid got to play a scene with the doctor.
Well, let's not nitpick, and take the original question in the spirit it was intended rather than its literal wording.
Yeah, that definitely doesn't qualify as an "episode", and it's apparently not "canon" either (*) but it's still a Doctor Who related thing that supposedly features Savile (unfortunately) (**), and probably the thing that he vaguely remembered hearing about.
(*) Though apparently some people with too much time on their hands have tried to rationalise it as being canonical anyway. :eek: Sci-fi fans are seemingly obsessed with "canon"...
(**) I believe he supposedly appears at the end. But since BBC Worldwide blocked the only complete copy of the original I could find on YouTube ("Thanks" guys... :mad:), I don't know if this is a fourth-wall breaking thing or not. I'm not sure I care either...!
You've lost me there, there were none in this thread, but I hardly think it matters.
Well, how about "If you start wanting to suggest there's a significant and important difference between the kids' TV channels, then I think you're watching too much kids' television."
How was that relevant, precisely? Not to mention it was provocative.
This is like pulling teeth, in the context of what I first posted, whichever channel it was, even if it were BBC1, it was of no significance to the point I was making.
Try reading my first post again.
I bow to your obvious in-depth knowledge of the different children's TV channels.
Research?
Did it not occur to you from my post, that I wasn't taking this all as seriously as you obvious seem to be doing?
See, you're still at it. You can't type out a post without putting in a condescending little sneer. Then you act all innocent when people get annoyed.
Well... If you must keep bangin' on, after I'd said enough times, that whatever channel it was on, was immaterial to the point I was making in my original post.
What did you expect?
I'm not acting innocent, just expressing mild exasperation at the unwillingness shown to accept that fact.
It really is of no consequence on which channel it was shown even if it were BBC1 as I said.
But, as I've pointed out, the entire argument arose from the fact that, when your mistake was pointed out, instead of just saying it wasn't relevant, your response was a cheap sneer. Had you been able to resist that temptation, the argument wouldn't have occurred.
Hear Hear!
Hmm..
You're hear again, like the guy next door to the Simpsons, when one of the kids turns up the central heating thermostat.
You never fail to amuse me.
Hmm..
I think enough people had made the point about which channel the programme was on, which wasn't relative to my point, for most not to be bothered about it.... but then there's you.
There's no argument, just you bangin' on.
There's that condescending tone again, sure sign you've goofed.
Wish they would do that with 80s shows and reair them.
What's up?
Don't like to be told what you usually do?
Tell me again, when you last started a topic on an actual programme rather than nit-picking the opinions on TV of others?
Thought so, we've drawn a blank again.
As i have told you before, i am very busy and tend to record programming and watch it at a later date. By the time i get round to watching things a thread is already up on DS.
I have started a few threads though.
Doesn't change the fact you can't accept you got something wrong.
Just accept it, or "scroll down".....
That excuse doesn't fly as many people start threads on programmes shown the previous day or even earlier.
So I take that as a "no" then, as you've made similar posts as this in response to me asking the same question, but never provided any evidence.
You prefer to nit-pick other contributors posts rather than add anything worthwhile.
Accurately.....
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1787313
Still has lively debate, but the OP was accurate.
I didn't say it was "No", merely that by the time i get round to watching things there is ALREADY a thread on DS about it.
That means a new thread will get merged with an existing one.
So, it's good practice to do a search for the existing one and then contribute to that.
Unfortunately, that means that someone will have posted something untrue, or just plain wrong in it, and that needs to be put right before proper, mature, debate can take place.
How entertaining
Get a room, really.
Can we get back on topic and leave the intellectual masturbation about who was at fault? You do understand that that's never going to be resolved either way, right?