Doctor Who Ratings Rise in the US, Fall in the UK

[MarsProbe]

I watched it on iPlayer live (gotta love BBC for that), and I must say one thing that does irritate me:-

Please just have a different 'intensity' music track every so often.

Likewise. They need to either replace that "dundundun dudundundun" track (that's what it sounds like, right?) or use it less frequently. Use it when we're about see an entire fleet of Dalek ships zapped out of existence, granted, but when the Doctor has just emerged from the public toilet of a greasy American diner? Not so much.

What else disappointed me. In the trailer that was released not too long ago, the scene where we saw Amy firing a gun and the Doctor doing his best anguished scream of "NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO", it looked like the most dramatic event in the history of the world was going down. In then end though, what we got was Amy shooting an spacesuited non-entity that we had absolutely no connection to or reason to care about, followed by a sharp cut to the credits. Well done, team.

 

[LittleWings]

Also, is anyone else a bit pissed that it wasn't Davros behind the TARDIS exploding?

I was, and then realised they'd probably have him in a multicoloured chair. Also, this episode seemed a golden opportunity to bring back some of the older characters. I'm not necessarily talking about 'classic' characters, but just some from the past 2/3 years. I get the feeling that they're trying to destroy any evidence of the David Tennant/RTD era.

On the plus side, the constant referencing to past Doctors seems to have stopped.

 

[Wes1180]

I watch all my BBC shows on iplayer. I wonder if thats the problem?

As do I, but they still count them, just not yet is all... probably waiting until its no longer available on there.

 

[JDKJ]

And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."

You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.

Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.

No one said that it was more present in the US's political system. The original quote that you were initially replying to was,

£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p

The guy was making a cast away comment about America's patriotism....

some would have called it a joke.

Did you overlook the "more" in "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system?" You don't understand to say -- regardless of what prompted it -- that racism and xenophobia are more prevalent in the US political system than it is in the UK's? And I'm the "grand idiot."

I've not read anyone saying that nationalism is more prevalent in the US political system. If they have said that. I haven't seen it.

You did however insinuate that it's more prevalent in the UK. As a country. Which is completely bogus.

The only reason that we have overt racists in our political system is because - and I've said this many times now - we have a multi-party system. Any idiot can set up their own party for whatever reasons they see fit.

You're conveniently ignoring this fact because it moots your point. The UK isn't any more racist than the US. (as a whole) We just have a political system that allows the racists to create a party that they can all vote for. A Political system that is admittedly not perfect. But one I'd take over yours any day of the week.

I don't know how "jokes" work where you're from, but where I'm from, jokes are expected to be funny. If they're not, they're something other than "jokes."

Are you actually saying the US has a better sense of humour than the UK?

The UK is pretty much renowned for it's sense of humour. We have successful comics from all sides of comedy. Including a massive amount of love for American comics. Breeding comedy and allowing it to grow is essentially what we do.

Christ. Where'd you learn to read? What, pray tell, does "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" mean to you? That's not an ambiguous statement. And before you rush to answer, read it over a few times first while wearing your thinking cap (that would be the cap that's not conical in shape with a pointy top -- that's a dunce cap).

I think you need to learn to read. I said that it's not something I've seen. The only person I've seen say that is you. In quotation marks.

I haven't seen anyone else say that. That does not mean that no one else said it. Only that you're the only person I've seen using that specific combination of words.

Now go back and re-read my last post because my point remains valid.

Ahh. I confused your illiteracy with your visual impairment. See Da_Vane's post at 7:06AM in this thread. The statement is his, not mine. You may want to alternatively try getting really close to your monitor or really far away from it (depending on whether you're near- or far-sighted).

Am I going to have to spell it all out in 'dem der fancy simple terms' again for you? Looks like it.

I didn't say the statement was yours. I said you're the only person I've seen use those words in that exact order.

Would you like to know why?

Because I haven't read every-bodies posts in these retarded cartwheels of ignorance that are your opinions on foreign(to you) politics.

If that statement was a direct reply to you. Then the likelihood is that you read it. It however wasn't a direct reply to me. So I somehow (heaven forbid) glossed over it when trying to pick out the infectious cesspool of misinformation that you call an argument.

Da_Vane was wrong. But so was your assertion that the UK (As a country) is more racist than the US.

Which no doubt Da_Vane was replying to.

Ahh. I see. You were unaware that is was Da_Vane and not I that said it. Fair enough. No big deal. There's already enough of which you are unaware to make that particular piece of ignorance less than alarming in the overall scheme of things.

You're not the first person to try and back out of a discussion they've lost by trying (and failing) to insult me in a vein attempt to dance around the points they can't argue with, Smart money says you won't be the last either.

But what I find hilariously ridiculous is that you're calling me on ignorance when, after I've explained it to you 3 times, you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'll simplify it even further. But I will warn you, I can't write this in crayon.

I didn't read DaVane's post because I didn't see it. So I had only seen you use that collection of words in that order.

I did not claim you or anybody else wrote it, I simply said I had seen no one's post saying it.



Simples.

Ignorance is ignorance. It matters not the route by which you arrived at your ignorance. Be it inadvertent or advertent, the fact of your ignorance still remains.

You're not the first to step into the path of a fast-moving bus and claim: "I didn't see it!"

As does yours.

Only your ignorance is quite extensive. And on a topic that you're trying to lecture people on.

Not reading a persons forum post pales in comparison to that really.

I would also think there aren't that many people to have lived long enough after 'stepping in front of a fast moving bus' and still be alive to say 'I didn't see it.'

Also, that analogy really isn't fitting.

Not reading every post in a forum topic and not looking both ways before crossing the road aren't really comparable.

Not reading every post in a forum topic but then still ignorantly running your mouth on the matter is comparable to . . . ignorance. Matter of fact, it's more than comparable. It's tantamount.

 

[The Sane]

Whats the issue with Rory using the word "Gasoline"? They were in America, and he was just reading what was written on the bloody can ffs.

I don't care that the ratings have dropped, Smith is a much better Doctor than Tennant, just with less of all the hyperbolic fandom. That plus the much better overall writing.. there are still a few mis steps but not as bad now that Moffat is lead writer. His gems were what kept me interested through Russels time.

I only had one problem with this opening episode. As an opener it does need to be pretty epic to set the scene, so starting with a double episode certainly gives you more room to do it in, but we should still get the whole story in one go. One review said that it was far too 'wordy', and I can't really disagree with that. I would say unavoidable to a point, setting the scene and all that, but having to wait another week before getting any of the action is a bit much. Airing it as a single one and a half hour episode and then falling back to the regular schedule would have been preferable.

 

[Master_of_Oldskool]

In honesty, I'm just wondering if this all stems from them all missing David Tenant.
The man was a walking sex god by the shows end, if the girls reactions were anything to go by.

It's not just the girls actually >.>

Yeah, definitely not just the girls.

Actually, I do quite miss David, but that's not the only reason I don't like Matt Smith. There's just something about him that screams of un-Doctor-ly behavior.

 

[Lucifus]

£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p

Or because its become Americanised. The new Dr was mainly popular with Americans.

 

[crudus]

ARG! Rory said gasoline instead of petrol! BLASPHEMY!
As an American who was raised on classic Brit coms, I find the reason for your disappointment a little insulting. Yes I read your post further down and I do prefer the American version of 'the Office' (clueless Steve Carell wins over clueless Ricky Gervais). I don't believe however that Doctor Who being tilted toward Americans automatically makes it bad. The British audience was still five times the size of the American one. Now if they REALLY wanted to cater to an american audience, they'd make it a sonic power-drill instead of a sonic screw driver.

THAT would be blasphemy.

I caught that, but didn't find it weird. I use words and slag from different countries just for the sake of being different. It doesn't mean society is going to shit just because I tell people smoking fags is bad for them.

They must have used most of their advertising budget over here in America. If I was watching TV, I didn't go one day without seeing a commercial for it at least once.

More probable is the UK thought they would be preaching to the converted about when the new Doctor Who was. I am in America and I barely heard about when it was out but I was online searching for the date. More fans in the UK, why spend the money when they were go out of their way to find out?

Captha: ypprogr Lägeren, why the foreign language?

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Smith is definitely one of th emost underrated Doctors, mostly because the more rabid of Tennant's fans NEVER SHUT UP. Plus Moffat is a WAY better writer than Davies. Heck, check out the series Sherlock if you doubt me

 

[JDKJ]

And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."

You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.

Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.

No one said that it was more present in the US's political system. The original quote that you were initially replying to was,

£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p

The guy was making a cast away comment about America's patriotism....

some would have called it a joke.

Did you overlook the "more" in "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system?" You don't understand to say -- regardless of what prompted it -- that racism and xenophobia are more prevalent in the US political system than it is in the UK's? And I'm the "grand idiot."

I've not read anyone saying that nationalism is more prevalent in the US political system. If they have said that. I haven't seen it.

You did however insinuate that it's more prevalent in the UK. As a country. Which is completely bogus.

The only reason that we have overt racists in our political system is because - and I've said this many times now - we have a multi-party system. Any idiot can set up their own party for whatever reasons they see fit.

You're conveniently ignoring this fact because it moots your point. The UK isn't any more racist than the US. (as a whole) We just have a political system that allows the racists to create a party that they can all vote for. A Political system that is admittedly not perfect. But one I'd take over yours any day of the week.

I don't know how "jokes" work where you're from, but where I'm from, jokes are expected to be funny. If they're not, they're something other than "jokes."

Are you actually saying the US has a better sense of humour than the UK?

The UK is pretty much renowned for it's sense of humour. We have successful comics from all sides of comedy. Including a massive amount of love for American comics. Breeding comedy and allowing it to grow is essentially what we do.

Christ. Where'd you learn to read? What, pray tell, does "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" mean to you? That's not an ambiguous statement. And before you rush to answer, read it over a few times first while wearing your thinking cap (that would be the cap that's not conical in shape with a pointy top -- that's a dunce cap).

I think you need to learn to read. I said that it's not something I've seen. The only person I've seen say that is you. In quotation marks.

I haven't seen anyone else say that. That does not mean that no one else said it. Only that you're the only person I've seen using that specific combination of words.

Now go back and re-read my last post because my point remains valid.

Ahh. I confused your illiteracy with your visual impairment. See Da_Vane's post at 7:06AM in this thread. The statement is his, not mine. You may want to alternatively try getting really close to your monitor or really far away from it (depending on whether you're near- or far-sighted).

Am I going to have to spell it all out in 'dem der fancy simple terms' again for you? Looks like it.

I didn't say the statement was yours. I said you're the only person I've seen use those words in that exact order.

Would you like to know why?

Because I haven't read every-bodies posts in these retarded cartwheels of ignorance that are your opinions on foreign(to you) politics.

If that statement was a direct reply to you. Then the likelihood is that you read it. It however wasn't a direct reply to me. So I somehow (heaven forbid) glossed over it when trying to pick out the infectious cesspool of misinformation that you call an argument.

Da_Vane was wrong. But so was your assertion that the UK (As a country) is more racist than the US.

Which no doubt Da_Vane was replying to.

Ahh. I see. You were unaware that is was Da_Vane and not I that said it. Fair enough. No big deal. There's already enough of which you are unaware to make that particular piece of ignorance less than alarming in the overall scheme of things.

You're not the first person to try and back out of a discussion they've lost by trying (and failing) to insult me in a vein attempt to dance around the points they can't argue with, Smart money says you won't be the last either.

But what I find hilariously ridiculous is that you're calling me on ignorance when, after I've explained it to you 3 times, you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'll simplify it even further. But I will warn you, I can't write this in crayon.

I didn't read DaVane's post because I didn't see it. So I had only seen you use that collection of words in that order.

I did not claim you or anybody else wrote it, I simply said I had seen no one's post saying it.



Simples.

Ignorance is ignorance. It matters not the route by which you arrived at your ignorance. Be it inadvertent or advertent, the fact of your ignorance still remains.

You're not the first to step into the path of a fast-moving bus and claim: "I didn't see it!"

As does yours.

Only your ignorance is quite extensive. And on a topic that you're trying to lecture people on.

Not reading a persons forum post pales in comparison to that really.

I would also think there aren't that many people to have lived long enough after 'stepping in front of a fast moving bus' and still be alive to say 'I didn't see it.'

Also, that analogy really isn't fitting.

Not reading every post in a forum topic and not looking both ways before crossing the road aren't really comparable.

Not reading every post in a forum topic but then still ignorantly running your mouth on the matter is comparable to . . . ignorance. Matter of fact, it's more than comparable. It's tantamount.

Ignorance simply means not knowing something. Nothing more.

And you appear to be the king of running your mouth off about things you know little to nothing about. Namely the BNP's influence in the UK and how that reflects on our society. You know... what this arguments all about.

Nice diversionary tactics though.

And you didn't know that Da_Vane made the statement. That, given your own definition, is ignorance. Again, it doesn't matter that you didn't see it, or didn't read it, or that you've blocked Da_Vane and everything he might have to say from your conscious mind. What matters is that, by your own admission, you knew nothing of what he said. And that makes you ignorant of what he said.

And you can call my opinion of the BNP and it's popularity in British politics and the reflection that casts on the British "ignorant" all you want. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. And ain't nothing you can say will dissuade me -- certainly not given your persuasive skills. But you're free to continue flapping your lips. Talk to a brick wall all you want, if that brings you joy. It ain't no skin off my back.

 

[Lethos]

And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."

You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.

Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.

No one said that it was more present in the US's political system. The original quote that you were initially replying to was,

£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p

The guy was making a cast away comment about America's patriotism....

some would have called it a joke.

Did you overlook the "more" in "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system?" You don't understand to say -- regardless of what prompted it -- that racism and xenophobia are more prevalent in the US political system than it is in the UK's? And I'm the "grand idiot."

I've not read anyone saying that nationalism is more prevalent in the US political system. If they have said that. I haven't seen it.

You did however insinuate that it's more prevalent in the UK. As a country. Which is completely bogus.

The only reason that we have overt racists in our political system is because - and I've said this many times now - we have a multi-party system. Any idiot can set up their own party for whatever reasons they see fit.

You're conveniently ignoring this fact because it moots your point. The UK isn't any more racist than the US. (as a whole) We just have a political system that allows the racists to create a party that they can all vote for. A Political system that is admittedly not perfect. But one I'd take over yours any day of the week.

I don't know how "jokes" work where you're from, but where I'm from, jokes are expected to be funny. If they're not, they're something other than "jokes."

Are you actually saying the US has a better sense of humour than the UK?

The UK is pretty much renowned for it's sense of humour. We have successful comics from all sides of comedy. Including a massive amount of love for American comics. Breeding comedy and allowing it to grow is essentially what we do.

Christ. Where'd you learn to read? What, pray tell, does "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" mean to you? That's not an ambiguous statement. And before you rush to answer, read it over a few times first while wearing your thinking cap (that would be the cap that's not conical in shape with a pointy top -- that's a dunce cap).

I think you need to learn to read. I said that it's not something I've seen. The only person I've seen say that is you. In quotation marks.

I haven't seen anyone else say that. That does not mean that no one else said it. Only that you're the only person I've seen using that specific combination of words.

Now go back and re-read my last post because my point remains valid.

Ahh. I confused your illiteracy with your visual impairment. See Da_Vane's post at 7:06AM in this thread. The statement is his, not mine. You may want to alternatively try getting really close to your monitor or really far away from it (depending on whether you're near- or far-sighted).

Am I going to have to spell it all out in 'dem der fancy simple terms' again for you? Looks like it.

I didn't say the statement was yours. I said you're the only person I've seen use those words in that exact order.

Would you like to know why?

Because I haven't read every-bodies posts in these retarded cartwheels of ignorance that are your opinions on foreign(to you) politics.

If that statement was a direct reply to you. Then the likelihood is that you read it. It however wasn't a direct reply to me. So I somehow (heaven forbid) glossed over it when trying to pick out the infectious cesspool of misinformation that you call an argument.

Da_Vane was wrong. But so was your assertion that the UK (As a country) is more racist than the US.

Which no doubt Da_Vane was replying to.

Ahh. I see. You were unaware that is was Da_Vane and not I that said it. Fair enough. No big deal. There's already enough of which you are unaware to make that particular piece of ignorance less than alarming in the overall scheme of things.

You're not the first person to try and back out of a discussion they've lost by trying (and failing) to insult me in a vein attempt to dance around the points they can't argue with, Smart money says you won't be the last either.

But what I find hilariously ridiculous is that you're calling me on ignorance when, after I've explained it to you 3 times, you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'll simplify it even further. But I will warn you, I can't write this in crayon.

I didn't read DaVane's post because I didn't see it. So I had only seen you use that collection of words in that order.

I did not claim you or anybody else wrote it, I simply said I had seen no one's post saying it.



Simples.

Ignorance is ignorance. It matters not the route by which you arrived at your ignorance. Be it inadvertent or advertent, the fact of your ignorance still remains.

You're not the first to step into the path of a fast-moving bus and claim: "I didn't see it!"

As does yours.

Only your ignorance is quite extensive. And on a topic that you're trying to lecture people on.

Not reading a persons forum post pales in comparison to that really.

I would also think there aren't that many people to have lived long enough after 'stepping in front of a fast moving bus' and still be alive to say 'I didn't see it.'

Also, that analogy really isn't fitting.

Not reading every post in a forum topic and not looking both ways before crossing the road aren't really comparable.

Not reading every post in a forum topic but then still ignorantly running your mouth on the matter is comparable to . . . ignorance. Matter of fact, it's more than comparable. It's tantamount.

Ignorance simply means not knowing something. Nothing more.

And you appear to be the king of running your mouth off about things you know little to nothing about. Namely the BNP's influence in the UK and how that reflects on our society. You know... what this arguments all about.

Nice diversionary tactics though.

Abandon, I genuinely would not carry on trying to convince this guy. It's not relevant to the thread, and he is clearly making no attempts to listen to your points. It's not his ignorance that I'm finding outstanding, but rather his stubbornness

 

[JDKJ]

And that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" is also a matter for debate. At least the American politicians couch their hatred in code words and dog whistles. The BNP's candidates don't hesitate to call a Pakistani a "Paki bastard."

You think the dishonesty in the US system is an advantage? At least everyone knows what they're dealing with in the BNP.

Agreed. I'll take the obvious evil over the hidden one every time. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system." I'll beg to differ with that assertion.

No one said that it was more present in the US's political system. The original quote that you were initially replying to was,

£500 says the reason it was rated so high in the US was because it was based in the US. Yanks take nationa... erm... "patriotism" to new extremes =p

The guy was making a cast away comment about America's patriotism....

some would have called it a joke.

Did you overlook the "more" in "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system?" You don't understand to say -- regardless of what prompted it -- that racism and xenophobia are more prevalent in the US political system than it is in the UK's? And I'm the "grand idiot."

I've not read anyone saying that nationalism is more prevalent in the US political system. If they have said that. I haven't seen it.

You did however insinuate that it's more prevalent in the UK. As a country. Which is completely bogus.

The only reason that we have overt racists in our political system is because - and I've said this many times now - we have a multi-party system. Any idiot can set up their own party for whatever reasons they see fit.

You're conveniently ignoring this fact because it moots your point. The UK isn't any more racist than the US. (as a whole) We just have a political system that allows the racists to create a party that they can all vote for. A Political system that is admittedly not perfect. But one I'd take over yours any day of the week.

I don't know how "jokes" work where you're from, but where I'm from, jokes are expected to be funny. If they're not, they're something other than "jokes."

Are you actually saying the US has a better sense of humour than the UK?

The UK is pretty much renowned for it's sense of humour. We have successful comics from all sides of comedy. Including a massive amount of love for American comics. Breeding comedy and allowing it to grow is essentially what we do.

Christ. Where'd you learn to read? What, pray tell, does "strong racist, nationalist, principles are more present in the US political system than the UK political system" mean to you? That's not an ambiguous statement. And before you rush to answer, read it over a few times first while wearing your thinking cap (that would be the cap that's not conical in shape with a pointy top -- that's a dunce cap).

I think you need to learn to read. I said that it's not something I've seen. The only person I've seen say that is you. In quotation marks.

I haven't seen anyone else say that. That does not mean that no one else said it. Only that you're the only person I've seen using that specific combination of words.

Now go back and re-read my last post because my point remains valid.

Ahh. I confused your illiteracy with your visual impairment. See Da_Vane's post at 7:06AM in this thread. The statement is his, not mine. You may want to alternatively try getting really close to your monitor or really far away from it (depending on whether you're near- or far-sighted).

Am I going to have to spell it all out in 'dem der fancy simple terms' again for you? Looks like it.

I didn't say the statement was yours. I said you're the only person I've seen use those words in that exact order.

Would you like to know why?

Because I haven't read every-bodies posts in these retarded cartwheels of ignorance that are your opinions on foreign(to you) politics.

If that statement was a direct reply to you. Then the likelihood is that you read it. It however wasn't a direct reply to me. So I somehow (heaven forbid) glossed over it when trying to pick out the infectious cesspool of misinformation that you call an argument.

Da_Vane was wrong. But so was your assertion that the UK (As a country) is more racist than the US.

Which no doubt Da_Vane was replying to.

Ahh. I see. You were unaware that is was Da_Vane and not I that said it. Fair enough. No big deal. There's already enough of which you are unaware to make that particular piece of ignorance less than alarming in the overall scheme of things.

You're not the first person to try and back out of a discussion they've lost by trying (and failing) to insult me in a vein attempt to dance around the points they can't argue with, Smart money says you won't be the last either.

But what I find hilariously ridiculous is that you're calling me on ignorance when, after I've explained it to you 3 times, you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'll simplify it even further. But I will warn you, I can't write this in crayon.

I didn't read DaVane's post because I didn't see it. So I had only seen you use that collection of words in that order.

I did not claim you or anybody else wrote it, I simply said I had seen no one's post saying it.



Simples.

Ignorance is ignorance. It matters not the route by which you arrived at your ignorance. Be it inadvertent or advertent, the fact of your ignorance still remains.

You're not the first to step into the path of a fast-moving bus and claim: "I didn't see it!"

As does yours.

Only your ignorance is quite extensive. And on a topic that you're trying to lecture people on.

Not reading a persons forum post pales in comparison to that really.

I would also think there aren't that many people to have lived long enough after 'stepping in front of a fast moving bus' and still be alive to say 'I didn't see it.'

Also, that analogy really isn't fitting.

Not reading every post in a forum topic and not looking both ways before crossing the road aren't really comparable.

Not reading every post in a forum topic but then still ignorantly running your mouth on the matter is comparable to . . . ignorance. Matter of fact, it's more than comparable. It's tantamount.

Ignorance simply means not knowing something. Nothing more.

And you appear to be the king of running your mouth off about things you know little to nothing about. Namely the BNP's influence in the UK and how that reflects on our society. You know... what this arguments all about.

Nice diversionary tactics though.

And you didn't know that Da_Vane made the statement. That, given your own definition, is ignorance. Again, it doesn't matter that you didn't see it, or didn't read it, or that you've blocked Da_Vane and everything he might have to say from your conscious mind. What matters is that, by your own admission, you knew nothing of what he said. And that makes you ignorant of what he said.

And you can call my opinion of the BNP and it's popularity in British politics and the reflection that casts on the British "ignorant" all you want. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. And ain't nothing you can say will dissuade me -- certainly not given your persuasive skills. But you're free to continue flapping your lips. Talk to a brick wall all you want, if that brings you joy. It ain't no skin off my back.

You really are quite the thickie aren't you?

I never said I wasn't ignorant of that fact. I was pointing out that ignorance wasn't what you were implying.

Ignorance is simply not to know something.

Everybody who has ever existed is ignorant of a great many things. We aren't the internet. We can't know everything. And not knowing something as minute as one persons post really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. So if the biggest fuax pas I've made in this shit trap of a discussion is to not know what one person said. I'll leave with my dignity intact.

If the same can be said for you, you really didn't have much dignity coming in.

Glad to see what a discussion with you is like.

Talk to a brick wall all you want

What a fair and accurate description of yourself.

LOL.

I think the most persuasive and charismatic of individuals would have a hard time convincing a brick wall of anything.

The mere fact of your admittance of your attitude is enough of a victory for me.

I can't polish a turd.

Enough of you and the "idiot" and "thickie" bullshit.

I can't self-attest to be a "thickie" but that is what your Mother told me. I'm inclined to thinking I'm a "longie" but I'll take her word for it. She should know better than I.

 

[JDKJ]

Enough of you and the "idiot" and "thickie" bullshit.

I can't self-attest to be a "thickie" but that is what your Mother told me. I'm inclined to thinking I'm a "longie" but I'll take her word for it. She should know better than I.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That read like a joseph Decrux 'yo mamma' joke. Is this really all you have left.

HAHA

Oooooooo. You just gave me the biggest genuine LOL I've gotten from a forum in a lonnnnnnnnnng time.

Well done.

If nothing else. You play the fool very well... maybe it comes naturally?

Abandon, I genuinely would not carry on trying to convince this guy. It's not relevant to the thread, and he is clearly making no attempts to listen to your points. It's not his ignorance that I'm finding outstanding, but rather his stubbornness

Yea, I think I'll phase out of this one. No real point continuing an argument with a self confessed 'brick wall'.

There's only so much fun you can have watching somebody flounder around when they're called out on their uninformed opinions.

I'm glad you think yours are any more informed than mine. But, then again, I've never heard the fishmonger confess that his fish wasn't fresh.