Metropol

cityprod wrote:Projecting much, Bilky?

No, though I would be interested to read how you've worked that out (via PM, obviously - I doubt anyone else will be).

bilky asko wrote:

cityprod wrote:Projecting much, Bilky?

No, though I would be interested to read how you've worked that out (via PM, obviously - I doubt anyone else will be).

It's really quite simple. You worked something out in your own head, and thought that everybody thinks that way, so therefore so must cityprod. So you projected your own opinions onto me.

Except, I don't think that way. I'm less worried about the numbers, and more concerned with the fact that the audience can actually think for themselves. I'd value 1,115 independent thinkers, over 1.115million who aren't.

cityprod wrote:

bilky asko wrote:

cityprod wrote:
Except, I don't think that way. I'm less worried about the numbers, and more concerned with the fact that the audience can actually think for themselves. I'd value 1,115 independent thinkers, over 1.115million who aren't.

Would your '1,115 independent thinkers' be able to acquire an advertising deal with a mobile phone company that crosses over with the television channel brand? MTV has a clear demographic and companies who wish to advertise with them to target that audience, so those figures are important.

Martin Phillp wrote:Would your '1,115 independent thinkers' be able to acquire an advertising deal with a mobile phone company that crosses over with the television channel brand?

Completely irrelevant. It's a different audience that MTV has to what I have, both in terms of size, and political leanings. Corporate synergy and many other buzzwords, not to mention the quarterly profit lines are all these companies think about.

I'm more interested in things that will make a difference, and things that will do something different, and providing a product that is a bit different, but yet still feels familiar.

Different worlds, different ideas. I may voice my displeasure at the fact that programmes like Geordie Shore even exist, even though it was a pretty blatant copy of Jersey Shore (there goes that lack of imagination again), but I can't deny that getting over 1 million is excellent figures.

cityprod wrote:

bilky asko wrote:

cityprod wrote:Projecting much, Bilky?

No, though I would be interested to read how you've worked that out (via PM, obviously - I doubt anyone else will be).

It's really quite simple. You worked something out in your own head, and thought that everybody thinks that way, so therefore so must cityprod. So you projected your own opinions onto me.

Except, I don't think that way. I'm less worried about the numbers, and more concerned with the fact that the audience can actually think for themselves. I'd value 1,115 independent thinkers, over 1.115million who aren't.

I was making the link between what you consider mindless drivel and what I consider mindless drivel from you. Clearly you didn't take the hint, as with the rather obvious hint that I couldn't care less about how you misinterpreted a forumer's posts yet again.

Steve in Pudsey wrote:Have I missed a subtle piss take or is this a serious question?

Riaz wrote:CITV presentation from 1986 to 1988 features images of electronic circuit boards. Does anybody know what type of machinery they are out of?

Can I just add that I rather enjoyed seeing this question not only asked, but a reply had an image contributed, and the second response "dignified" the thread with what looks like an accurate answer to the question. The thread is now sinking down the list, it's purpose complete.

Surely that's how the forum should work?

It may be ultra niche, but still more interesting (to me) than the breathless reporting of how many women were on Loose Women, or how Piers was given a funny look by Suzanna on GMB.

bilky asko wrote:

cityprod wrote:

bilky asko wrote:
No, though I would be interested to read how you've worked that out (via PM, obviously - I doubt anyone else will be).

It's really quite simple. You worked something out in your own head, and thought that everybody thinks that way, so therefore so must cityprod. So you projected your own opinions onto me.

Except, I don't think that way. I'm less worried about the numbers, and more concerned with the fact that the audience can actually think for themselves. I'd value 1,115 independent thinkers, over 1.115million who aren't.

I was making the link between what you consider mindless drivel and what I consider mindless drivel from you. Clearly you didn't take the hint, as with the rather obvious hint that I couldn't care less about how you misinterpreted a forumer's posts yet again.

Or, and this is potentially a revolutionary idea to you, you thought you were making a link, but in fact you weren't, you missed the target. You tired to be too clever by half, rather like a lot of advertisers these days, and rather than communicating what you thought you did, you said something entirely different.

Maybe you should just stick to talking straight, saying what you mean, meaning what you say. Though, if you think I talk mindless drivel, then I don't know how you are going to cope with some actual mindless drivel.

cityprod wrote:

bilky asko wrote:

cityprod wrote:
It's really quite simple. You worked something out in your own head, and thought that everybody thinks that way, so therefore so must cityprod. So you projected your own opinions onto me.

Except, I don't think that way. I'm less worried about the numbers, and more concerned with the fact that the audience can actually think for themselves. I'd value 1,115 independent thinkers, over 1.115million who aren't.

I was making the link between what you consider mindless drivel and what I consider mindless drivel from you. Clearly you didn't take the hint, as with the rather obvious hint that I couldn't care less about how you misinterpreted a forumer's posts yet again.

Or, and this is potentially a revolutionary idea to you, you thought you were making a link, but in fact you weren't, you missed the target. You tired to be too clever by half, rather like a lot of advertisers these days, and rather than communicating what you thought you did, you said something entirely different.

Maybe you should just stick to talking straight, saying what you mean, meaning what you say. Though, if you think I talk mindless drivel, then I don't know how you are going to cope with some actual mindless drivel.

Sorry, I don't appeal to the lowest common denominator. And if you think a Bond Theme Marathon is anything but mindless and, for community radio, drivel, then you're far more of a self-aggrandising hypocrite than I previously thought.

bilky asko wrote:

cityprod wrote:

bilky asko wrote:
I was making the link between what you consider mindless drivel and what I consider mindless drivel from you. Clearly you didn't take the hint, as with the rather obvious hint that I couldn't care less about how you misinterpreted a forumer's posts yet again.

Or, and this is potentially a revolutionary idea to you, you thought you were making a link, but in fact you weren't, you missed the target. You tired to be too clever by half, rather like a lot of advertisers these days, and rather than communicating what you thought you did, you said something entirely different.

Maybe you should just stick to talking straight, saying what you mean, meaning what you say. Though, if you think I talk mindless drivel, then I don't know how you are going to cope with some actual mindless drivel.

Sorry, I don't appeal to the lowest common denominator.

There's nothing lowest common denominator about talking straight, in fact, it seems to be a sign of actual intelligence these days, where as most duck and dodge and generally avoid.

And if you think a Bond Theme Marathon is anything but mindless and, for community radio, drivel, then you're far more of a self-aggrandising hypocrite than I previously thought.

Really, back to this again? So boringly, pathetically predictable. You can do better than that, surely.

I keep getting PMs from someone who wants me to upload the final episode of SMTV to the dropbox or somewhere similar... I don't have the time to, or even anywhere to upload such a big file to. Every couple of days I keep getting poked,

scottishtv wrote:

Steve in Pudsey wrote:Have I missed a subtle piss take or is this a serious question?

Riaz wrote:CITV presentation from 1986 to 1988 features images of electronic circuit boards. Does anybody know what type of machinery they are out of?

Can I just add that I rather enjoyed seeing this question not only asked, but a reply had an image contributed, and the second response "dignified" the thread with what looks like an accurate answer to the question. The thread is now sinking down the list, it's purpose complete.

Turns out it's quite a bit of rare bit of kit - but really ought to have had some sort of anti-theft device on it.