CBBC Embarrassment

13

Comments

  • KodazKodaz Posts: 1,018
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    Is there? You could be right but I've seen every existing episode of Who, 650+ of them, many of them several times, and I remember no Saville.

    I vaguely remember hearing of this before, and a bit of quick searching turned up what was apparently called "A Fix with Sontarans".
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,028
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Kodaz wrote: »
    I vaguely remember hearing of this before, and a bit of quick searching turned up what was apparently called "A Fix with Sontarans".

    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.
  • KodazKodaz Posts: 1,018
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    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...!
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Simon JacksonSimon Jackson Posts: 8,687
    Forum Member
    To be honest. The Savile scandal is highly overrated. Even more overrated than Simon Cowell and his TV shows
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    I bow to your obvious in-depth knowledge of the different children's TV channels.
    No "depth" is required to know that each channel is targeted to a different audience. Minimal research (or having kids!) would be enough.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No "depth" is required to know that each channel is targeted to a different audience. Minimal research (or having kids!) would be enough.

    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?
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    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!
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    duplicate post
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    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.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.

    There's no argument, just you bangin' on.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    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.

    There's that condescending tone again, sure sign you've goofed.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hmm..

    A bit unfortunate the BBC showing a kid's programme with a Jimmy Savile character, the other morning.

    But then if they will recycle twelve year old programmes without checking the content.

    Wish they would do that with 80s shows and reair them.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    There's that condescending tone again, sure sign you've goofed.

    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.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    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".....
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    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.
  • A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    An example of how this thread could have been started ...

    Accurately.....


    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1787313


    Still has lively debate, but the OP was accurate.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.