You really do have it in for them don't you?

It's beginning to appear almost pathological. Perhaps for your own wellbeing, you ought to stop investing quite so much time overthinking the format of a highly successful TV programme which enjoys enormous public popularity and high ratings.

Given all that, I suspect that the producers of the show seem to have a far better grasp of what works well than you do.

But it isn't funny!

In your opinion.

See what happens in the future, X Factor looks in better shape now to move forward, they have got lucky with Balls this year but I can see the worm turning the signs of decline are there.

Are you being "heightist?"

That's a new one for Strictly.

How about the difference in height between Claudia and AJ, greater and surely more important if height matters......... and it doesn't?

Nothing you've said hasn't been laboured many times before.

Perhaps you should have read a few threads, before you "astounded us with these revelations."
Yet despite all the things you say and some the rest of us have mentioned, Strictly is still the most watched show on TV.

Believe us (I'm including other people here whether you like that or not, I know you don't like posters including others), we're quite happy with the show as it is. Any change in presenter would cost more and not change the content of which most of us watch the show.

I and many others fast forward through some of the stuff you keep complaining about. That's how important it is for us and the continuing success of the show.

.... perhaps in whatever parallel universe you inhabit. I couldn't bring myself to watch it under any circumstances but I know several people who do and I've yet to hear anyone say anything other than that the show is dying on its @rse - slowly and painfully.

If, as you say, there are "signs of the decline" of the show are there then it most likely to be simply down to "it's run its course" and therefore it is unlikely that any changes to the staff or format would be able to "save it" completely and indeed any major shake-up could simply hasten the decline rather than stop it, as you may inadvertently change the essence of whatever it is people are coming to watch.

However, I don't agree with you that there is a decline and I can't see any signs of it, certainly the viewing figures are holding up very well.

And I absolutely don't agree with you that the X Factor is in better shape, it has almost become a parody of itself these days.

We will see next year X Factor has the old judges chemistry back and the signs are there the ship it slowly turning around, a decent performer or better two and Cow will come back. As for BBC the big sign is how long they have to keep Balls in and I confidently predict he will get through this week and probably until the time only the semi-pros are left to eliminate, some of the judging and performance has gone very x-factor this year. Fooling the public only has a short-life, even I can spot how slow the contestants are moving in some of the dances, Horwood would certainly have called that out in years gone by so even he is under orders.

Anyone able to translate this sentence?

I think the X factor's desperate last-ditch attempt at regaining their glory days by re-hiring all the old panel goes directly against your theory that changing the strictly presenters would be a good thing.

What do you mean when you say "Cow" - do you mean Simon Cowell? Some sort of joke or do you think that's his name?

And no , they don't have any chemistry, the old man is clueless, the old woman is half drunk, the shouty woman just shouts and even the nasty man isn't nasty any more.

I don't know what your obsession with Balls is, but if you mean the contestant Ed Balls then I don't know why you put him in every post you make? Are you suggesting he is the only reason people are watching this year? If you are, you're wrong.

For MoanyLiza: an attempt at interpretation:

"We will see next year. 'X Factor' has the old judges' chemistry back and the signs are there: the ship is slowly turning around. A decent performer - or, better, two - and Cowell['s show] will [stage a ratings] come-back."

I think he's trying to say he likes X Factor but not Strictly come dancing.

Thank you both. Some splendid use of punctuation too.

It takes an should we say interesting individual to find the need to poke fun at others on an internet board. Sorry to bear constructive criticism of your favourite but it needed debating and I am sure will be again. I will be closely looking at the performance of Daly and Winkleman this weekend and will post my findings.

For cryin' out loud why didn't he just say that in the first place?

Instead of post after unconvincing post?


Actually, it didn't need debating at all. You just chose to offer opinions.

Several of us then, "had to put you right."

I fortunately avoided that question in "O" level English and chose another option, it's always a minefield.

I don't think it was poking fun. Your lack of punctuation, together with typos, had rendered your thoughts unintelligible on a first read.

Yes, you do that, and whilst you are monitoring them see if you can determine what their full names are and endeavour to attempt to be respectful enough to use them sometime.

And she wasn't poking fun, the turn of phrase you use often makes it unclear as to what exactly it is you are trying to convey.

Oh, and your criticism hasn't been constructive in any way whatsoever, it all amounts to "I don't like the presenters, so I want rid, failure to heed my request will lead to the doom of the show" which isn't a debate, it's a tirade, and it is still wrong.

Nope. Couldn't manage to make much sense of any of that either.

Re the part not in bold type - not to worry. I think most people are more than capable of making their own minds up about the relative merits of Strictly and its presenters, judges, performers etc versus those of the "other show"... and without having to depend on your incisive analysis.

I don't think all that is fair, X Factor went to worse presenters from it's peak, I don't think it would be possible for the BBC to do that. I can see the point on the shouty one but the others are solid.

As for Balls I don't believe the viewing figures would have held up without him the rest of the package is flaky this year. That is why he is still in the competition and will stay longer, no question about that.

I am sure you can really but as you enjoy it so much there is plenty more to come, Like I said I look forward to reporting on the performance of Daly and Winkleman this weekend.

There's now a 4 MILLION gap between Strictly !0 million, and X Factor 6 million. At one time they used to be level pegging. SCD advantage is a never ending line up of top celebs, because they draw from politicians, tv presenters, actors, singers, sportspeople- basically anyone in the public eye is a potential candidate- so it will be many a year before they start scrapping the barrel.

Anyone talented enough for X Factor would have applied in previous years and got on, so now they must be down to people who have applied in previous years, but not got through the audition before (There won't be many good people who have never previously applied) That plus sob stories (so I'm told) to make us feel sorry (a common trait in ITV productions) mean that X Factor is in an irreversible downward spiral.

I think it was to be fair.

Don't worry, MATT. I have an ignore list and I'm not afraid to use it.

X Factor is pretty much like a nineteen-year old dog with three legs and no teeth. Probably kinder just to have it gently euthanised.