She didn't say it - even though you were convinced enough that she did that you told others that she had. Now you have the evidence put in front of you, she must have asked him to in advance.

This was a difficult situation for Christine - as John's colleague she wanted to demonstrate support for him but as a remaining contestant she had to tread gently so as not to upset the producers. Subtlety may not be your thing but it was obviously her subtle way of saying I'm behind you John!

Think Strictly Ballroom not Tea at the Ritz. Clichés and stereotypes, mocking and embracing, as they say.
Don't be mixing it up with a some village fete popularity contest.

Obviously I was "convinced" because of the fact the presenters work as a pair and subconsciously, at least, we do not seperate them.

And I admitted I was mistaken, so please do not put words in my mouth. I did not suggest that Christine asked Adrian to ask the question, - though thats not inconceivable now you mention it - I simply said I doubted they wouldnt have reviewed the questions beforehand. It is a professional show after all.

You were the one who said she looked embarassed, but I disagree. She showed no surprise or embarassment and she did say she would do her best for John. If that wasnt a direct tout for John's supporters' votes I dont know what is.

Agreed. I do hope she gets to the final.

I'm with Golden anemone on this and think you've read far too much into that short clip. I don't think it was a tout for John's supporters at all, just a nice thing to say to a colleague in the circumstances. Adrian does do a lot of touting (much the same as on GMTV ect., but he's just carried away with enthusiasm - remember he originally said he didn't think she'd be any good at all!).

I watched the whole interview live, but watching it again I still go with my initial impression. In context of it being the day John announced he was pulling out of Strictly, coupled with the fact Christine was a fellow contestant, the question was tacky and Christine should have veto'd it.

Ofcourse not everyone will agree with me, but that's fine

Rachel was slated by the judges for her lack of performance every week up until the rumba, so I don't see where all these cries of favouritism have come from

personally I'm more sick of them constantly blowing smoke up Austin's a*se considering he's far too stiff from the waist up and hasn't improved since week 1

so there!

[LIST][*]Sky-high ratings?[*]Constant publicity?[*]Massive success?[*]Incredible export potential? (£60 million a year!)[/LIST]
This thread is another example of an a priori assumption being presented as an axiom.

Or, in other words, "it needs saving" is rubbish.

I'm very happy with this series...and I'm sure the producers are delighted with the continued spectacular success of Strictly.

I have my criticisms of this series...particularly the 'qualifying' rounds...but it's all building up to a very interesting climax...so I hope nobody tries to 'save' it.

Exactly.

We get these threads every year - "The Day SCD Died", "Is this the End for SCD", "How can we rescue SCD", blah blah blah.

And yet somehow, every year it seems to just barely survive with 10 million viewers on a Sunday evening...

Err, I was referring to this series, ie. SCD 6 - not the SCD brand as a whole.

(That said, I do think the brand has been damaged by recent events).

I think, for many people, SCD 6 has become somewhat of a bitter affair.

A victory for Christine, the new underdog who doesn't seem to have lost sight of the entertainment/fun dimensions of the show.......... might go some way to healing the wounds of the millions who feel they have had their favourite taken away from them.

That's all I'm saying. It ain't rocket science.

Well, yeah. So are all the 143,854 other similar threads.


The viewing figures disagree with you.

How can you explain this disparity between your opinion and the facts?

And if you're not measuring brand value by ratings, how do you measure it?


Got any evidence for the "millions" thing?


Sure, but you're not actually providing any facts to back up your opinion - and you're stating your opinion as fact.

It's just your opinion - and I disagree with it.

The viewing figures without JS on the show are not yet available, so there is no disparity in need of explanation.

I clearly do not state opinion as fact. I qualify statements twice with "I think".

The "millions" thing is an assumption, agreed, but I fail to get your point. In fact, I fail to get you at all.

I do meet people from time to time who like to dissect people's opinions in a similar fashion as to yourself, but generally I tend to avoid such people.

And btw, your "well, yeah" opening line is you stating your opinion as fact.

Why did John leave the week after he did a good dance, got good scores and nice comments from the judges?

As a dancing competition it is beyond redemption.

Bloody Hell
Unpleasant comments - go on! You mean like I think Arlene's a slapper and she spends most of that dosh she gets maintaining her weight. My attitude is simple those that manipulate and bully deserve all they get.

But it's not about the dancing, remember? SCD has nothing to do with dancing at all. At least that's the impression I get lately.

I thought that Sunday's show had got 10 million viewers?

That's what the post says here:

A Cillay's a long-standing poster, I assumed it was a credible statement.


Where's the "I think this series is in trouble" bit in your thread title then? Because I missed that bit.


My point is that you're extrapolating wildly from your own personal viewpoint, without any data to back this up.

My point is that the available data actually contradicts your opinion (which is that the show needs to be "saved").

My point, in fact, is that this thread doesn't make sense.


My point is about your thread not you personally. Please be aware of the difference, and extend me the same courtesy, OK?

Sorry, you're right.

The bigger, the better.

The more posts, the more credible a source.

The more viewers, the less a show is in need of saving.

Well said.

And, can everyone remember to preface all views/opinion/statements and utterances with "I think".

If I may I can see why some may take your comments personally, in my opinion your posting style tends to be curt and overly confrontational.
I guess that you feel very strongly about your subject matter but If I may offer some genuine advice I have always found that when i am overly aggressive in my arguements I tend to turn off the person i am trying to debate with.Thus defeating the purpose of debate.
In my opinion very large numbers of people are very unhappy with the way the judges in particular are behaving and by inference the production team. They still watch but will not continue to do so unless the format returns to a more upbeat and uplifting style until that happens |I believe that the great British Public will continue to flip the bird to the judges and this may well result in a pro Christine vote!

My anecdotal experience suggests a similar disatisfaction with recent events, and a desire to see an under-dog fun type contestant prevail.

For a number of those with whom I've spoken, a Christine victory would be preferable, certainly, based on a notion that the series is in need of some redemption.

I love Christine, but beleive she should have been in the bottom with Jodie this week as her dancing was quite bad.

I fail to understand why the weakest dancer winning would save the show.

[quote=taxi_driving;29021756]My anecdotal experience suggests a similar disatisfaction with recent events, and a desire to see an under-dog fun type contestant prevail.

For a number of those with whom I've spoken, a Christine victory would be preferable, certainly, based on a notion that the series is in need of some redemption.[/QUOTE]

Maybe this is not popular, but I don't want Christine to win. I always want the best dancer to win. To me it would be a shame to see her win just because people are transfering votes form John on to her, or just out of principle. I feel no matter how lovely you are, if you are not that great a dancer I would prefer you to go.

Well, my posting style varies depending on the level of post I'm responding too. If you don't believe me, look at my posts on the dance threads, or in the "Not appreciation" thread.

Something to consider, possibly...

Anyway:

That's possible, but the forum isn't Real Life. Just because there's a load of uproar in the forums, doesn't necessarily mean that translates into the same sentiment for the GBP.

People like controversy.

If I were really cynical, I'd wonder if the whole thing was, shall we say, a wee bit manufactured?

I'm 100% certain that the producers have absolutely loved the Sargeant-Gate saga, it's been great for them.

Always remember, the production team don't give a stuff about the quality of the series. Their only measure is ratings. If ratings increase, they've succeeded.

That's it.


So, if the viewing figures increase, or stay stable, then will you admit your argument was wrong?

Because I can't see how you can say "Well, more people are watching but they're not happy about it" - how on earth can you tell? And why would people watch a programme they don't like anyway?