BLAST IT OUT !!
Why can't TV broadcasters get their volume levels right?
You watch a movie and turn up the volume a bit because you can't hear some of the dialogue. Then the station ID comes on, or the commercials, and the music and voices blast out into the room and you have to turn the volume down. And when you switch from one channel to another you invariably have to adjust the volume.
With techie equipment costing millions, have the TV companies never heard of sound levelling?
Why can't TV companies all run on the same clock?
Ever noticed (especially if you are recording something to watch later) that some TV channels' clocks run differently to others? Both BBC and ITV channels frequently start some programmes a bit earlier than the advertised times. (The BBC One Show invariably starts at 18.57 despite its advertised start time of 19.00). So you miss the first several seconds or more of a programme. Other channels start programmes, or show their clocks, at times differing up to 45 seconds.
Still on the subject of TV companies -
why the hell can't they instruct their news readers and reporters
NOT TO REPEAT EACH OTHER!
Here's a typical example :-
Newsreader: The recent winter weather continues. Spare a thought for Anytown which last night had another 80 centimetres of snow and the lowest temperatures on record,- a staggering minus 125 degrees. Our reporter Joe Bloggs is there for us now.
Joe Bloggs: Yes, thank you. Well I'm standing here in Anytown up to my knees in snow, where the temperature last night fell to minus 125 degrees, the lowest temperature ever recorded, and the inhabitants awoke this morning to find another 80 centimetres of snow had fallen during the night.
HOW BLOODY INFURIATING!
Evidently some reporters are incapable of independent thought.
Can't understand.....
.....why the BBC put out this show at prime time on a Saturday evening.
They call it All New Total Wipeout ??
Can't understand why they broadcast it at all. It's insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. What's a better name for it.......?
Ah, yes!!
"Lots of people falling into water"
Seen one person fall in.....seen 'em all.
Hammond, you should know better! And....
Don't give up the day job!!
Verbal Diahrrea
Watched the first episode of "How TV Ruined Your Life", hosted by
Charlie-I-never-use-one-word-when-a-hundred-and-fifty-will-do-Brooker.
Interesting concept and there were a few points that were vaguely interesting and entertaining, but I'm not sure I'll sit through the remaining five episodes. Might manage one more, if I remember to tune in, but the whole thing was not to my taste.
Probably for one main reason.
Will someone tell
Charlie-I-never-use-one-word-when-a-hundred-and-fifty-will-do-Brooker
to pause occasionally and take a breath !!!
"Rip-off Britain"
Ironic coincidence, is it not, that the BBC programme "Rip-off Britain" devoted an entire edition to banks ripping off people with their charges.
I have posted about this elsewhere, (see the link to "Banks") but it was interesting to hear my own observations being echoed in the programme.
What concerned me was the final comment in the programme that these excessive charges are apparently "...here to stay".
WHY ??
References were made during the programme to the Financial Ombudsman, the Financial Services Authority, (by their new name) and even the Trading Standards Office.
None of these bodies seem capable of preventing the banks' runaway rip-offs by extortionate charges
WHY ??
There is the further remarkable fact (not referred to in the BBC programme, because it was made before the announcement) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now, in fact, backed down before the banks and allowed them to pay slightly reduced but still appallingly gross bonuses to their top staff.
WHY ??
During the whole shenanigans about the extra levy on banks that George Osborne wanted to instigate, no mention of the banks' charges was ever made. Now he has kow-towed to them and the "man in the street" can only form one conclusion from that.
The government is powerless, as are the financial protection institutions, in the face of the banks who have complete and utter freedom to do just as they like.
In other words, it just confirms that the money institutions pull the strings, and the government, and therefore the populace, dance to their tune.
But, you see,
Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and their cronies would do well to remember a fact and a phrase that is not aired much nowadays, because the government wince whenever they are faced with it:-
They are elected
PUBLIC SERVANTS
and servants obey their masters, that's you and me, the electorate,
NOT the other way round!
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ?
That's a laugh!
I posted a comment about Primeval on the ITV forum. It was headed "So disappointing!" and it just said that the whole series was disappointing and there were many errors in some episodes. It was only four lines.
I had a reply from a specific person at ITV services thanking me for my comments. The post was published. Four days later it was removed and I had an email from "Gianfranco" telling me so, and I noticed that now, ITV was moderating posts before they were published which was not the case previously. There are other posts on the forum which complain about the quality of the show. So why remove mine?
Freedom of Speech?
Where's that gone then?
Evidently ITV are afraid of posting anything which seriously questions their professionalism.
Which, of course, is unprofessional itself.
How the BBC is wasting our money again.
The BBC sent George Alagiah to Cairo to report on the demonstrations there. Then they brought him back to read the news for a few days. Then they sent him back to Cairo again.
It is the licence payers, you and I, who are paying for all this travel!
John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen, Christian Fraser and Ian Pannell were also there. How many more reporters did the BBC need to have there, and how much more of our money are they going to waste flying their people halfway round the world and back again every week or so!! And if you look on the BBC "Points of View" forums there are a LOT of people who feel the same!
BBC, stop wasting the licence fees you so greedily claim every year!
The foregoing post can also be seen under the "Political Correctness" topic.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD !!
Political correctness is crippling this country.
We all know that. Whether you like to believe it or not, there is no question about it. Came across an example the other day of how stupid it is, and how restricting, (and possibly dangerous. But only for guys, it seems!)
The BBC One Show made a short film of different situations in a workplace, with a panel of nine "everyday judges", male and female, and a so called "expert" to give a legal view on each of the three examples.
In the first, a female starts to eat a doughnut, watched by a male colleague. He expresses surprise and uses the expression, "..... your lovely figure."
EIGHT of the nine gave him a red card and said they thought the comment was either creepy, or insulting, or bordering on sexual harassment.
Only one person, a FEMALE, stated that she had taken the comment to be a compliment.
The legal "expert" gave the opinion that the guy could possibly have been disciplined for sexual harassment.
In the third of the examples two females are talking in a corridor outside a door. The guy comes up in a rush, says "Excuse me, ladies" and places his hands on the hips of one female and gently eases her aside so he can get to the door.
Everyone thought that was okay.
The legal asshole thought it wasn't, and said that each of the examples was a borderline case which could result in disciplinary or even legal action against the guy.
In other words, the legal "expert" was hedging his bets so that any opinion he gave couldn't come back and bite him in the ass. Useless twat!
THERE WAS NO EXAMPLE WHERE THE FEMALE SAID, OR DID,
ANYTHING TO THE GUY!!
So what do we conclude from this ridiculous and biased view of what is correct and what is not?
Well, first, sexual harassment apparently only works one way. A female is apparently incapable of initiating anything resembling sexual harassment to a guy.
Otherwise, the Oh-So-Correct-BBC would have given an example of that too, right??
They didn't !!
Second, don't speak a word to a female colleague, because almost anything you say can be taken the wrong way. Don't even THINK about trying to pay a compliment to a female colleague!! Just don't speak. Ignore all females in the workplace.
It's safer!
Third, you can manhandle a female with virtual impunity. Placing your hands on the hips of a female colleague is less likely to get you in trouble than trying to pay her a compliment.
How utterly stupid, pathetic, insulting and biased, is that ???
Crippling.
FEMALES:- Knock it off! For your information, flirting has been around longer than texting. Yes! It is possible to flirt by voice, or even mild gestures.....not just by frantically tapping keys on your phone. Well, fancy that! A mild compliment issued by voice is NOT a sign that the guy is a pervert! If he hasn't actually grabbed your tits or your ass, take the comment at face value as a compliment, or a mild flirt, unless it's OBVIOUS that there is a seriously creepy element. Telling you that you have a lovely figure is neither creepy nor perverted!
It's only been the natural order of things for several hundred years.
But nowadays, you know better, do you?
GUYS:- If you really want to pay her a compliment, or flirt with her with a view to a date, do it in the car park where there is no chance of anyone else overhearing! At least that way you can vehemently deny you ever said anything!
Failing that, you'll have to text her.
The foregoing post can also be seen under the "Political Correctness" topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment