On the Sofa (part 2)
This topic contains 918 replies, has 85 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
1 June 2013 at 09:16 #11493
This is silly fun. A random Doctor Who story generator:
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/drwho/
Example:
The Doctor has vowed to return to a future Earth colony, but something lurks menacingly. The Doctor, Clara, and Clara’s two charges discover the first traces of the Master. The White Guardian intervenes and saves the day. Katy from CBeebies is revealed as a new incarnation of Romana.
1 June 2013 at 10:22 #11500@bluesqueakpip @curvedspace @MTGradwell @JimTheFish
Thank you for your explanation everybody! As I said I have never heard of it in any other context before so special thanks to @bluesqueakpip for the history lesson!
Just wanted to make clear I never wanted to get into any debate if there is a canon or not (of which there is non I suppose).@theseniletardis Welcome!
1 June 2013 at 11:41 #11502Hi everyone, I’m looking for a bit of help here from you guys.
Basically looking for a quote from the 10th doctors time and I cant for the life of me remember the episode. I do however remember he was on a spaceship and with the crew and they went to like a main chamber where the skylight type roof opened up and I think there was a body floating. Anyway, one of the crewmen uttered a quote. Possibly along the lines of ”man” and ”grave”, but I can’t remember exactly.
I remember at the time thinking it was a good quote and I should’ve wrote it down. Hopefully you can help
Thanks in advance
Simon1 June 2013 at 12:02 #11503@thesimon2000 It’s from The Impossible Planet/The Satan pit.
As Wikipedia puts it: As they watch Scooti drift towards the black hole, Jefferson recites the lines
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Godsfrom Macaulay’s 1842 poem Horatius, Stanza XXVII, about the heroism of Horatius Cocles.
1 June 2013 at 12:03 #11504That’s the one!!!!!! Thank you for that Craig. You truly are the Master
1 June 2013 at 12:58 #11506Have had another note from @htpbdet who says ‘the Forum gave my nephews and I a wonderful time together last night as we discussed rubbish Doctor Who monsters’.
They wrote this together for @danmartinuk :
If you define “rubbish” as badly conceived ( rather than badly designed or badly served by the script) , then my list of rubbish Doctor Who monsters is simple:
1. The Quarks. (Dominators)
Absurd, pointless walking guns with ludicrous voices. The stupidest idea ever had by a Doctor Who writer. Not even Patrick Troughton could make them look scary. Or even interesting.2. The Myrka. (Warriors of the Deep)
The Silurians are very intelligent – it was beyond belief that they would genetically modify a creature such as this.3. Mestor. (Twin Dilemma)
The other giant slug first encountered in Twin Dilemma. If you were a slug with super mind powers – powers so great you can open the TARDIS doors – you would not keep the slug form for long. Truly.4. The Nimons. (Horns of Nimon)
Words fail me. Those feet…The Tottering Morons of Doom!5. The Slyther. (Dalek Invasion of Earth)
It is really inconceivable that a Dalek would have a pet, but if it did, you would expect it to be something more vicious and horrific than this many-handed walking canvas bag of…god knows what.6. The Movellans. (Destiny of the Daleks)
No self-aware robot would ever have hair like that.7. Wolfweeds of Chloris. (Creature from the Pit)
Honestly, if you have the ambition and skill of Adrasta, your fiendish plant allies would be bred to do something useful…8. The Ergon. (Arc of Infinity)
Omega, one of the greatest Time Lords ever, the man who sacrificed his life to power the time travel technology of Gallifrey creates a foul fowl as his servitor? Really?9. The Tractators/Gravis. (Frontios)
What were they doing again? Never mind what they looked like, what were they doing again?10. The Vampires found in Venice. (Vampires in Venice)
What were they doing in Venice? What? Seriously?I will stop at ten. Just one thing – I don’t think it’s fair to count the Abzorbaloff in this list: an imaginative child came up with that. Who are we to squash the imagination of children, to stamp out the thrill of childhood success?
1 June 2013 at 13:50 #11507@scaryb @timeloop @jimthefish @curvedspace
This is despite the fact that both Post Gap showrunners have explicitly said ‘there is no canon’.
Although, to offer a dissenting voice (me? surely not!), Moffat’s avowed tendency to lie and both his and RTD’s writing show that they are very respectful of canon and neither has progressed without at least a passing nod to what they may be contradicting. Similarly, take away the gloss and Moff is very respectful to the Holmes source material.
The most common side-step of canon is the retcon (retrospective (or retroactive) continuity), something which changes our understanding of past events, without changing the facts of it. Retcons have to be done with great care or they can wreck the story of a show Whedon’s undermining of the Flaying of Warren Mears being one of the worst ever).
Moffatt, in The Name of the Doctor, has just pulled off what I consider to be the greatest retcon ever. There is no contradiction now which cannot be attributed at least in part to the GI and Clara duking it out, liberating all future writers. But they still have a requirement to respect the history of the show.
1 June 2013 at 13:52 #11508What were they doing in Venice? What? Seriously?
Hmm. This was quite clearly explained in-episode.
1 June 2013 at 14:00 #11509Hmmm, I seem to have lost a post – apologies if this materialises twice.
Not really news as the link is 3 years old, but interesting article on Sydney’s Newman’s advice in mid 1980s on how to resuscitate Dr Who – they didn’t take it.
2 June 2013 at 05:53 #11582Hi All,
New member and first time posting so obligatory apologies if this iI posted in the wrong location or if it’s been asked before. 🙂
i had the pleasure of seeing Neil Gaiman speak at Worldcon in Montreal in 2009 and he talked about who was “his Doctor”. He quoted someone (possibly Gene Wolf?) on a theory that “your Doctor” is the first one after you experience a regeneration. In this instance Neil said that he started watching DW when Pertwee was the Doctor. He watched Pertwee regenerate into Tom Baker and, as it happens Tom Baker is in fact His Doctor.
What I’m looking for is an accurate quote from Neil including who he was quoting.
It’s worth mentioning that I completely agree with this theory. I began watching with the 2005 “reboot” and watched Eccleston regenerate into Tennant and David Tennant is without a doubt My Doctor. 🙂
2 June 2013 at 07:40 #11584Hello all. I’m new to the forums. I love Doctor Who and watch it all the time. Sadly no one to talk to it about cuz no one apart from me watches it within my circle of friends. I have a theory on John Hurt’s Doctor if anyone is interested in discussing that.
2 June 2013 at 08:34 #11588@lonelyangel Welcome fellow angel <waves @fishes with a sneaky smile!>
You’ve come to the right place 🙂
Speculation on Hurt Dr best on 50th Anniversary thread.
Most people are on The Next Dr thread at the moment, following Matt’s announcement last night (but they’ll be back on the 50th soon enough).
Spoilers go on the Spoilers thread only (any facts, photos etc which are not widely available or not on BBC Who site eg people initially posted Matt’s announcement on Spoilers – exactly right, except there’s no way that news was going to stay secret for long! So a bit overcautious, but it’s the way this site works)
Bonkers theorising on the other hand is what we are all about.
Feel free to jump in whenever you’re ready!
2 June 2013 at 09:10 #11599Hi @g33kboi Welcome. I think I’d probably agree too. My experience was the same as Gaiman’s although I was a bit too young to really remember Pertwee. We also have many stories on our Faces of the Doctor thread and Doctor Who Memories thread of people who started watching then thought “This new guy can’t possibly compare” and then fell in love with them.
P.S. I moved your post here to our new sofa – I’d forgotten to close the old one, but have now!
2 June 2013 at 11:05 #11618How come the TARDIS had a self destruct in Amy’s choice but not in JTtCotT what’s up with that? Is this the wrong thread to post that in?
2 June 2013 at 11:22 #11621@bluesqueakpip and everyone else. Lengthy interview with Joss Whedon in today’s Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jun/02/joss-whedon-reading-comics-pay-off
2 June 2013 at 18:06 #11682Ahhhh – those Australians know how to throw an early party. This is some footage from the event @bobbingbird was hoping to go to. It certainly looks the part and works as a nice little tribute to Matt Smith.
I would love to see an event like this.
2 June 2013 at 18:16 #11683Thanks for posting that link, it looked spectacular. I especially liked when the Cybermen upgraded the building and the squeals when the Angels kept getting closer.
It is getting a bit depressing in Britain re: the lack of any build up for the 50th. Australians get a fancy pants 3D projection and three of the Doctors a-visiting. we get an email leaked on twitter by a nobody. Doesn’t really cut the mustard does it?
2 June 2013 at 18:28 #11686@phaseshift Cheers – That excellent video took a bit of the sting out of the day…
2 June 2013 at 18:35 #11687In know what you mean. I kind of hoped that, at the end of the series and with all the Doctors featured in the final, the BBC would have taken the opportunity to start showing some old stuff, the documentaries that BBC America is showing, etc. as a way to build up interest.
It seems a bit weird to me.
Happy to help. Who needs Samaritans when you have the Doctor Who forum.
2 June 2013 at 18:40 #11689@phaseshift Methinks you might like this: Available to buy from tomorrow (in colour!)
2 June 2013 at 19:02 #11691Anonymous @
@phaseshift – I’m stunned. The editing in that clip ( http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/topic/on-the-sofa-part-2/page/2/#post-11682 ), personalised for the building it is projected upon, is just extraordinary. (And Dan Starkey as Strax gets featured!)
Is there any significance in the ‘5 minutes to 9:00’ focus on the clock? Considering the clip is 5 minutes long and the clock didn’t move. 🙂
I’m losing faith that we here in Britain are getting anything like the rest of the world in a build-up to the 50th. Why haven’t BBC put onto iPlayer – or indeed simply repeated on live telly – some episodes that will help build excitement for November?
2 June 2013 at 19:17 #11692@wolfweed – there in your clip, is some more cognitive dissonance of which I was speaking on the ‘New Doctor’ thread. The Pertwee Doctor resided in a time which didn’t include the “wham-bam-screw-you-ma’am” type of rat-a-tat Ritalin-inspired trailer that we’re accustomed to seeing nowadays. It’s just plain effing weird to see a pre-gap episode trailer given the whole Michael Bay treatment.
Even if it’s been devised to “bring in the young’uns”, then I wonder what those same young’uns will think when they watch the actual episodes?
2 June 2013 at 20:36 #11696@Shazzbot Classic Dr Who stories never had trailers. There were of course adverts for upcoming episodes or indeed series trailers sometimes.
Surely the idea of a trailer is to make the show seem as exciting as possible? How many films have you watched that disappointed compared to their trailers?
You have got a point though… (cut, cut, cut , cut, cut, cut, cut…)
@phaseshift Don’t worry – I’m not quite that depressed. I really shouldn’t joke about depression or suicide.
I wrote (jokingly) about the Samaritans because I had just watched Newsround & they said – ‘ If you’ve been upset by the news of Matt Smith leaving Dr Who… ‘ And I was expecting a helpline number (or something along those lines)! But they concluded ‘…You can always look at our gallery of his time as the Dr on our website.’ And I thought – God – that wouldn’t cheer me up – It would probably make me cry!
3 June 2013 at 00:21 #11718@wolfweed There’s a
for those who want to check out on the Matt Smith exit. It’s called the booze button! J/k 😀3 June 2013 at 00:33 #117203 June 2013 at 00:54 #11722Sipping burgundy while wearing a burgundy velvet jacket – now that’s class – if you can pull it off.
3 June 2013 at 00:56 #11723@wolfweed I’ve always been more of a happy drinker, most of the time. Despite the fact that alcohol is a depressant.
3 June 2013 at 00:58 #117243 June 2013 at 01:03 #117253 June 2013 at 01:07 #11726@phaseshift I, somehow managed to miss your video ’til now and I just saw it. Wow! It’s so cool! I’m jealous of those Aussies!
@wolfweed The only alcohol I have right now is a little bit of flavored vodka I have left, oh wait, I think there’s some small bottles of whiskey and rum downstairs I use for cooking. yay! 😀
3 June 2013 at 04:22 #11728Just one thing – I don’t think it’s fair to count the Abzorbaloff in this list: an imaginative child came up with that. Who are we to squash the imagination of children, to stamp out the thrill of childhood success?
It’s a fair point, although I think it was the execution rather than the idea that is the problem. Didn’t I read somewhere (on these very boards perhaps), that the young creator of the Abzorbaloff had imagined his monster to be 30 feet tall and not Peter Kay.
I suspect @danmartinuk‘s pitch may have been overtaken by events.
3 June 2013 at 07:44 #11735@whohar: I remember seeing the Blue Peter episode where the Abzorbaloff was announced and thinking it a gloriously horrible idea: a gigantic brute lumbering through the streets, picking people up and letting his flesh creep over them (a bit like the chair in Terror of the Autons). That’s how I envisaged it and I believe more or less how William Gratham envisaged it. Unfortunately, Russell T. Davies envisaged it as a tubby northern bloke who sucked people into his body in a totally silly way that didn’t make sense. What a wasted opportunity.
3 June 2013 at 12:51 #11740I’ve said before that I don’t frequent any DW-related internet places other than this site. But I had a look at Doctor Who Online which got name-checked (and its resident Key Master featured) in a BBC news clip as per @wolfweed‘s recent post ( http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/topic/the-next-doctor/page/2/#post-11659 ).
@craig – if that’s what it takes to be the ‘biggest fan website’ then please, oh please, oh please, don’t go down that route with your lovely site. A ‘Merchandise’ tab … really? Competitions, where to win one has to answer the [multiple-choice!] question ‘What was the name of the DW story that MS first appeared in as The 11th Doctor?’ Pay to become a ‘DWO site Time Lord’, or, pay even more to become a ‘DWO site Cardinal’? (the benefits of either appear to rest solely on having a ‘custom avatar’. give me strength) The (d)evolution of their site as per their archive snapshots over the years, their lengthy list of ‘online team members’, and their exhortation to ‘advertise with us’ all reek of the worst of commercialisation. No wonder they need to solicit suckers to pay to have a ‘custom avatar’.
Your site’s USP (besides the requisite bonkers theorising!) is being a warm, tranquil haven of considered and thoughtful analyses of episodes, arcs, and characters. And of course, humour. We wouldn’t have the community we have without a massive injection of bawdy humour.
I retract my hope that you (or any of your nominated stand-ins – @bluesqueakpip, @phaseshift, or @jimthefish) would be called to a BBC TV interview as a representative of ‘the biggest fan website’. Bigger isn’t better, and quality does matter. It would be far more thrilling to be recognised by the programme-makers themselves as being a haven of civilised, intelligent people who keenly adore the show and love to discuss it – and lacking any links to Amazon or eBay! – than to be known as a grossly commercialised (and frankly ugly) site like DWO.
3 June 2013 at 13:49 #11745@mistermaster – there is a Fan Creativity thread ( http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/topic/general-thread-fan-creativity/ ) where ideas like yours can be posted.
Welcome to our Forum; the ‘On the Sofa’ thread to which you have posted is indeed recommended to be the first stop of new sign-ups. But usually for greetings and suchlike; Fan Creativity is the better place for ideas which aren’t bonkers theorising about what has actually happened. We’re famous for our bonkers theorising (see any of the episode threads!); or, for ideas on what we might logically expect in the future based on clues in past episodes we have the Next Doctor and the 50th Anniversary threads.
3 June 2013 at 13:52 #11746@Shazzbot – thanks for the tip, will repost.
3 June 2013 at 14:49 #11751This is a bit of a topic change, but I have a meta question about the board itself. I’ve said before that I generally prefer to do post-analysis: I’m the kind of person who’s got Running Through Corridors in my to-read pile. I watch a classic ep and then mull it over with the relevant TARDIS Eruditorium post (though I read the WifeInSpace post, too). I like to look at the elements of what has gone into the show up to this point. It’s a kind of literary analysis thing, I guess. I’ve vastly enjoyed the perspectives and information brought by those of you that got to see Doctor Who in the Classic years.
I’m enjoying the speculation more than I thought I would — that’s because y’all are so funny and clever — but I still find that too much of it can take me out of the show. Someone on the forum has probably gotten very close to guessing Moffat’s next moves and I’ll have read that when I see the 50th anniversary show. It almost functions as a kind of spoiler. I’ve read so many theories about what I might see that the surprise now will be WHICH one comes true, rather than allowing my mind to be open to whatever Moffat might write. I’m deciding how I feel about that.
But enough about me. I want to know what YOU enjoy about the bonkers theorizing. Is it the satisfaction that one feels when reading a mystery novel and figuring out the whodunit? (I like that feeling, but I like to have it just before the protagonist figures it out, not halfway through the book.) Is it a drive to imagine Doctor stories (related to the drive to create fanfiction, I feel)? Something else?
(@ardaraith may want to chime in on this if she’s not already reading.)
3 June 2013 at 15:34 #11755@curvedspace – bonkers theorising? Combination of ‘I guessed the murderer before the end’ and ‘the author outsmarted me! Again!’ Also, I genuinely enjoy analysing scripts and performances.
I really doubt we’ve got anywhere near figuring out all of Moffat’s next move. As a writer, he’s smarter than all of us. 🙂
As above, that’s part of the fun. But bonkers theorists do need to be careful; you can fall in love with your own work, your own theory, and prefer it to whatever the showrunners have come up with. And I have seen people get very angry with authors and producers for, basically, not being the fan. For having their own story to tell, and not the fan’s story.
I’ve read so many theories about what I might see that the surprise now will be WHICH one comes true, rather than allowing my mind to be open to whatever Moffat might write.
My recommendation for that – and it’s something I’ve had to do when I’ve fallen too in love with a theory – is to tell yourself very firmly before watching the latest episode (especially if it’s the finale): “They were brilliant theories. And they’re WRONG. Brilliant – but wrong.”
Repeat as needed. 🙂
3 June 2013 at 15:37 #11756Hiya @curvedspace – my response to your meta-question is thus:
I was initially resistant to bonkers theorising in the Guardian’s DW blog. I remember (shamefacedly) wondering in my mind and in print, what are all these people on about?! Just watch the show and see what happens, for cripe’s sake! As you say, Doctor Who can be seen as a very long book, and who wants a cacophany of people mid-read to tell you what they think the whodunit is all about?
But I was sucked into the dark side (tee hee) by the sheer attention to detail that everyone there (and the best of them have settled here into this wonderful site) paid to each episode. From almost the word go, I found it necessary to watch the episode, go to the G blog and read about all that was important which I’d missed, and then re-watch the episode to get that ‘aaaah’ of satisfaction in understanding which a casual viewer would skate over.
Similar, I guess, to having a book club which convenes whilst all members are still reading the book, to discuss what each person thinks has happened so far. The projection of what might be coming, i.e., whodunit, is based in this example on an astonishingly focused attention on every single detail which causes you to re-read the book’s chapters so far, and see things you might not have picked up. Also, you might have seen details, or picked up themes, that other book club members didn’t – so by discussing them you are enriching their re-reading of the chapters to date as well.
For me initially, the bonkers theorising ™ was a side-note to learning about the many bits of script, acting, props, camera POV, and other details that enriched the show. But I then realised the most important point: that bonkers theorising also lends itself to further examination of what we had actually seen.
Someone on the forum has probably gotten very close to guessing Moffat’s next moves
But that’s where the joy is – no-one can understand The Moff’s plan. More importantly, bonkers theorising is a secret window into otherwise anonymous commenters. Through reading everyone’s ideas, and what they believe they have seen and how they project that into the future, I have gained a glorious insight into what makes different kinds of people ‘tick’. This is people-watching at its most extreme, and unlike normal wallflower-like people watching, it’s a participation sport. 🙂
3 June 2013 at 16:04 #11758@bluesqueakpip (and @curvedspace ) –
My recommendation for that – and it’s something I’ve had to do when I’ve fallen too in love with a theory – is to tell yourself very firmly before watching the latest episode (especially if it’s the finale): “They were brilliant theories. And they’re WRONG. Brilliant – but wrong.”
I’m outing my rubbish theorising skills (as if they weren’t obvious enough 😆 ) by saying that, as an inveterate book reader and with my book club analogy still in mind, I’ve never been too married to any bonkers theory. Not mine, nor anyone else’s. The joy is in the contemplation of what-could-be; I’ve never felt that this site with its bonkers theorising ™ template ever caused me to want to throw down the metaphorical book and say ‘that’s it! I don’t have to read any further.’
3 June 2013 at 18:54 #11767I’ve posted another blog post by @htpbdet. This time it is his musings on the distinction between BG Doctor Who and AG Doctor Who. For those who don’t know, we’re using Before Gap (BG) and After Gap (AG) instead of Old Who and NuWho.
http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/sidrat/the-distinction-in-ag-doctor-who/
3 June 2013 at 19:25 #11769@Shazzbot This:
Bigger isn’t better, and quality does matter. It would be far more thrilling to be recognised by the programme-makers themselves as being a haven of civilised, intelligent people who keenly adore the show and love to discuss it – and lacking any links to Amazon or eBay! – than to be known as a grossly commercialised (and frankly ugly) site like DWO.
That is my opinion exactly. I don’t want to commercialise this site. At the moment it doesn’t cost very much to run. If we start to get really big and more expensive then I think I’d rather accept donations from people who love the site and want it to continue than go over to the dark side.
I’m kinda reminded of the great Bill Hicks (apologies if there are children watching) 😀
3 June 2013 at 19:37 #11771… who wants a cacophany of people mid-read to tell you what they think the whodunit is all about?
Anyone who remembers JR or “who’s the daddy of ‘Chelle’s kid” from ‘stenders the first time round knows the answer to that.. 😉
3 June 2013 at 20:35 #11780Have you heard? Karen Gillan has been cast as the main villan in Marvel’s new movie Guardians of the Galaxy.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/doctor-whos-karen-gillan-will-also-be-in-guardians,98526/
3 June 2013 at 20:55 #11783Dear all, esp. @bluesqueakpip and @haveyoufedthefish I mentioned a while ago that I had been contacted by a PhD student who was doing research into the motivating factors behind active posting behaviour in online communities.
Then I forgot to post any more info 😕 She’s contacted me again to remind me. If you would like to take part in a survey to help out a PhD student then her message and link are below. You must be over 18, all your details will be confidential, and if you click the link there are more contact details and credentials if you are slightly wary.
Hi my name is Stephanie, I am conducting a survey to gain a better understanding of community member participation, as a valued member of this community I would really appreciate your input. For more information and to take part in this study please click on the link.
3 June 2013 at 20:57 #11784For those who don’t know, we’re using Before Gap (BG) and After Gap (AG)
@craig – or in my case, Pre Gap/Post Gap, Before Gap/Post Gap, Pre Gap/After Gap, err, err, I know there’s a Gap in there somewhere…
I’ll get it right eventually. 😀
3 June 2013 at 23:41 #11799@phaseshift Lovely video. Many thanks for that!
4 June 2013 at 00:14 #11809@curvedspace – Well, hello! Glad to see you dipping your toes in.
The Bonkers Theorising (apologies @chickenelly , I believe you trademarked that, didn’t you) is a fun, collaborative creative process, probably akin to fan fiction is a very loose sense. It’s the same vibe as a read-through, or even the rehearsal process. And my keen ability to suspend disbelief saves me from any disappointment or spoiling when I watch the episode–once the Storyteller begins, any of my own previous imagining disappears and I’m there..in the world..fully engaged and receptive. I’m just a big kid- ready to play. 🙂
4 June 2013 at 00:39 #11813@bluesqueakpip I’ll try to clear my head before watching. Thanks for the perspective.
@Shazzbot said:
watch the episode, go to the G blog and read about all that was important which I’d missed, and then re-watch the episode to get that ‘aaaah’ of satisfaction in understanding which a casual viewer would skate over.
Yes! That’s exactly what I like to do, except I’ve not read the Guardian’s blog. What you said about the board is all the stuff I’m finding that I like about it (and what drew me in above @ardaraith‘s recommendation). I doubt I’ll be a good theorist. I do love everyone’s attention to detail and I’m in awe of some of the loremasters around here.
@ardaraith I hope that I’m able to engage my suspension of disbelief, too. I haven’t really had the experience of having many theories in my head before watching Doctor Who yet — speculation on the 50th will be my first experiment like this. (Though me and mine certainly speculated about Star Wars ad infinitum and I had no problem saving analysis until after the movie . . . so on a personal level I’m probably overthinking this. Won’t be the first time I’ve done that. 🙂 )
4 June 2013 at 10:01 #11827@curvedspace re overdoing the bonkers theorising – you’d be surprised how often the hive mind can be completely wrong, LOL! There are many many red herrings in Moff-world and we jump on them all 🙂 For me all the theorising adds a lot of texture to the programme background, esp when people pick up on details I’ve missed (often, LOL).
And it’s fun!
@bluesqueakpip‘s advice is, as ever, spot on. Even if we do get something right it’s usually just in general terms and the programme takes its own (better!) spin on it. And you can always ration yourself!!
4 June 2013 at 10:09 #11828@craig Thanks for Bill Hicks link, made me laugh. Being a bastion against creeping commercialisation is something to be proud of. While I understand that the Graun etc are desperate to find ways of turning online views into cash, I hate how nearly every video link (not just on the G) now has approx 1min commercial break intro that you can’t skip through.
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘On the Sofa (part 2)’ is closed to new replies.
