I apologise for that I hadn't noticed it was another FM having a go about the same thing. Still I as I said it I don't feel it's necessary to research every aspect of a programme before responding to someone's comment as in this case the comment was not about the factual accuracy of a particular scene.
Didnt make any sense, at the beginning the other daughter, having seen the news phones her mum & said "I cant get hold of Jenny" so the mum says "Ill phone her & get back to you"?, & how many middle aged people, 10 yrs ago would be using a mobile in their own home when they could use a landline? Another thing, the reconstruction of the tube train, rush hour, people standing, yet the bomber has an empty seat either side of him?
It's not really likely she'd use the landline to phone her daughter on her mobile. As for the bomber having an empty seat either side - maybe it was done that way for dramatic effect, perhaps the screenwriter thought that would be more dramatic as the focus was put on one person with a backpack on his knee.
What I meant was roddydogs seemed to imply that s/he thought that wasn't realistic, that it was unlikely on a busy train for people to be standing when there were empty seats. That's the way I read it anyway, not that s/he beleived in reality that the bomber wasn't sitting alone.
What's with all this forensic disection of other people's posts? But if you are going to do it, at least be accurate, naturaldancer made a very valid response to another post. The key word you seem to be missing is "maybe".
What I meant was roddydogs seemed to imply that s/he thought that wasn't realistic, that it was unlikely on a busy train for people to be standing when there were empty seats. That's the way I read it anyway, not that s/he beleived in reality that the bomber wasn't sitting alone.
You didn't say anything about reality. You said it was how the screenwriter may have chosen to write that scene for dramatic effect.
What's with all this forensic disection of other people's posts? But if you are going to do it, at least be accurate, naturaldancer made a very valid response to another post. The key word you seem to be missing is "maybe".
The key word you seem to be missing is "research".
So very sad, even thinking about it now brings tears to my eyes. The book shown in the programme is the actual one Jenny had. No wonder her Mum treasures it.
You didn't say anything about reality. You said it was how the screenwriter may have chosen to write that scene for dramatic effect.
Someone else pointed out the reality.
I'm more than happy for someone to point out the reality, I objected to the tone of the post. Your tone is the same - there is no need to respond in high dudgeon, a simple pointing out of the facts would suffice.
I'm more than happy for someone to point out the reality, I objected to the tone of the post. Your tone is the same - there is no need to respond in high dudgeon, a simple pointing out of the facts would suffice.
But that's the thing. You weren't happy. You pretty much brushed aside the person bringing the facts to the table and barked about not needing to do any research first. I was pointing out that a bit of research would've done you many favours as you wouldn't have made the mistake in your post which was subsequently brought to your attention. My way of demonstrating that was showing what checking the relevant things first could achieve. Find out the reality of the situation before passing comment on it.
Oh Dear, I should have kept my mouth shut, I just posted an (incorrect) opinion.
No big deal. No im not going to "research" every single detail, its only Digital Spy, or Twitter, who cares its just chat. Lighten up.
Oh Dear, I should have kept my mouth shut, I just posted an (incorrect) opinion.
No big deal. No im not going to "research" every single detail, its only Digital Spy, or Twitter, who cares its just chat. Lighten up.
It's all about context. Think about what it was you were incorrect with.
You scoffed at the mother's actions and the circumstances of one of the bombers in relation to his place in the carriage to others. This was a real event so is due more care when giving such opinions. Would you say "lighten up" to those effected on that day?
Oh Dear, I should have kept my mouth shut, I just posted an (incorrect) opinion.
No big deal. No im not going to "research" every single detail, its only Digital Spy, or Twitter, who cares its just chat. Lighten up.
I wouldn't worry about that roddydogs - I was just gving my take on why it may have been done the way it was as I wasn't in possession of all the facts. As for research, you'd have to look into EVERY single detail of what happened regarding any drama based on a real life before you felt you could respond to someone else's comment.
It's all about context. Think about what it was you were incorrect with.
You scoffed at the mother's actions and the circumstances of one of the bombers in relation to his place in the carriage to others. This was a real event so is due more care when giving such opinions. Would you say "lighten up" to those effected on that day?
I wouldn't worry about that roddydogs - I was just gving my take on why it may have been done the way it was as I wasn't in possession of all the facts. As for research, you'd have to look into EVERY single detail of what happened regarding any drama based on a real life before you felt you could respond to someone else's comment.
Affected!
Which of course means that if you don't know for sure then maybe you're not in the position to respond and so shouldn't perpetuate the mistake.
BIB - Oh you got me. Or rather you got the trigger happy nature of the auto correct on my tablet, which has done me in more than once here and elsewhere. I'll try and take more due care of a single letter in whole posts in future.
Comments
Errrmm...
>>>>>>>>>>
What I meant was roddydogs seemed to imply that s/he thought that wasn't realistic, that it was unlikely on a busy train for people to be standing when there were empty seats. That's the way I read it anyway, not that s/he beleived in reality that the bomber wasn't sitting alone.
What's with all this forensic disection of other people's posts? But if you are going to do it, at least be accurate, naturaldancer made a very valid response to another post. The key word you seem to be missing is "maybe".
You didn't say anything about reality. You said it was how the screenwriter may have chosen to write that scene for dramatic effect.
Someone else pointed out the reality.
The key word you seem to be missing is "research".
I'm not missing anything. Your replies to naturaldancer are, for whatever reason, mis-interpreting what she wrote.
Feel free to reinterpret.
I'm more than happy for someone to point out the reality, I objected to the tone of the post. Your tone is the same - there is no need to respond in high dudgeon, a simple pointing out of the facts would suffice.
You seem to be taking the discussion incredibly personally.
Is there any particular reason for this?
But that's the thing. You weren't happy. You pretty much brushed aside the person bringing the facts to the table and barked about not needing to do any research first. I was pointing out that a bit of research would've done you many favours as you wouldn't have made the mistake in your post which was subsequently brought to your attention. My way of demonstrating that was showing what checking the relevant things first could achieve. Find out the reality of the situation before passing comment on it.
That's all I would suggest.
See above.
No big deal. No im not going to "research" every single detail, its only Digital Spy, or Twitter, who cares its just chat. Lighten up.
It's all about context. Think about what it was you were incorrect with.
You scoffed at the mother's actions and the circumstances of one of the bombers in relation to his place in the carriage to others. This was a real event so is due more care when giving such opinions. Would you say "lighten up" to those effected on that day?
I wouldn't worry about that roddydogs - I was just gving my take on why it may have been done the way it was as I wasn't in possession of all the facts. As for research, you'd have to look into EVERY single detail of what happened regarding any drama based on a real life before you felt you could respond to someone else's comment.
Affected!
Which of course means that if you don't know for sure then maybe you're not in the position to respond and so shouldn't perpetuate the mistake.
BIB - Oh you got me. Or rather you got the trigger happy nature of the auto correct on my tablet, which has done me in more than once here and elsewhere. I'll try and take more due care of a single letter in whole posts in future.