Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Trust me, I wasn't being rude. Certainly no more than you was being sarcastic.
|
Trust me, you were being rude, calling someone "obtuse" is rude. My remarks were to show the folly of your theory. Sarcasm, is not the same as being rude.
Quote:
|
It is a simple matter of running two schedules. They will run out of alignment but who really would care? I they do want to re-align the schedules periodically they can just ommit the less commercially-viable filler stuff. And yes, even the BBC has that. Come on, its the 21st century, these things aren't that difficult.
|
It is not "a simple matter of running two schedules," What would be the point? Given the choice, who would want to watch a second tier television channel?
Quote:
|
20% of the TV market is very sizeable. And besides, if the BBC was value-for-money then everyone would pay £142/year
|
Twenty per cent is
not a very sizable portion of the market. The fact that it is only twenty-per cent, suggests that it is not sizable at all. No commercial business would bother investing serious money into a campaign where they have access to only one fifth of their target.
Quote:
|
Very clever that you've taken my analogy out of context. OK, what if you don't want to fly?
|
It is not out of context at all. In fact it was a very accurate perspective view of how such an enterprise would be compared to the BBC.