« Previous | Main | Next »

A comment posted on an earlier entry, from Patricia..

Eddie Mair | 14:29 UK time, Monday, 23 October 2006

I'm sorry to say that what could be used as a newsworthy medium seems to be reduced to what I consider very un-newsworthy topics. After wading through several of the comments files it seems apparent that this feature is becoming full of people talking about what interests them within their sad lives. From fish fingers to parrotts.
I also feel that the PM programme is becoming watered down and I'm sure we could do with out all this nonsence (for instance) the Big Ben feature a few days back.
I would be curious to seee what your bosses would feel on the use of this valuable medium Mr Mair ?
It will be interesting to see if my comments appear or are indeed moderated as most of your other postings should be!!

Comments

  1. At 02:41 PM on 23 Oct 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    Patricia, you are truly sad. The PM blog is here to lighten lives, as well as to debate serious issues. Somewhat like life itself, really. It would not be the popular blog it now is, half chatroom, half debating chamber, if people didn't feel 'comfortable' enough to join in at different and differing levels.

    Of all the regular bloggers, I don't think there is one who wouldn't feel able to make a serious comment, or share a joke, or just share a bit of their life, with their fellow bloggers. It is a bit sad, therefore, that you feel this in some way affects the integrity of the BBC or the PM programme. As to the medium being valuable, it is indeed that, and - more to the point - it is VALUED, but not perhaps in the rather limited way you seem to view it.

    On a very personal note, one of the reasons I bother to join in is because I find this rare mixture both stimulating and interesting. It reflects the nature of the show's main presenter, who has the ability to take seriously the issues that are serious and to find fun elsewhere, which does help his listeners to cope with the rather tough stuff that makes up so much of life in general.

  2. At 02:41 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Carl Goss wrote:

    There isn't anything 'sad', or for that matter 'watered down' about my life... and PM? well it's only Eddie and the BBC.... not worth getting hung up on really.
    PS I missed the comments on fish fingers.. Blast.

  3. At 02:44 PM on 23 Oct 2006, only a lurker wrote:

    For heaven's sake, Patricia, there are worthy, even newsworthy, newsletters and blogs all over the BBC - and I don't subscribe to or read any of them. I subscribed to Eddie's because he promised us it would be a waste of our time - and very enjoyable it's been too!

    While I am commenting - unusually - can I just thank the regular contributors for their courteous welcome some time back and their explanation of the term 'frogger'. This is still a daily oasis ... thank you all and especially Eddie.

  4. At 02:46 PM on 23 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Did Patricia read the blog entry of :-10
    Oct 06, 09:59 AM.

    Perhaps she should ?

  5. At 02:58 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Hm, there seems to be a blockage in the PM frog since I can't believe that nobody has commented on this in the last 20 mins. And only jonnie and I have commented over in "Brief and to the point". Eddie posting it as a entry is interesting. Two possibilities occur to me: (1) he's looking for a bit of a "ding dong" - i.e. the pointless lot who hang around on here might choose to reply and suggest alternative points of view to Patricia; (2) this is another attempt to shunt the blog in a more serious direction - we might all be shamed into ceasing to post meaningless drivel. A third possibility might be that he's responding to Patricia's comment about being skootered - by promoting the comment to status of "blog entry" thus cementing its pointlessness as a defining feature.

    Clearly, I'm sublimating.

  6. At 02:59 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I think that's one in the eye for you, Patricia.

    We did actually discuss this very topic not long ago, when Eddie suggested we post any serious comments we might have on a real news story.

    I think the experiment proved successful.

    Blogs are not however an entirely serious forum, nor are they necessarily an educational tool. They create an online community who eventually get to know each other a little bit. And that's a lot of the fun of them.

    If all you want to do is comment seriously on a story, or ask Eddie to start a serious thread on a topic that you feel wants airing, I suggest you email the programme direct.

    You might as well avoid the PM blog if all you want is serious debate. We can do it for a bit but, like Eric himself, prefer to smile at life rather than take everything 100% seriously all of the time.

  7. At 03:11 PM on 23 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Fifi said on an earlier thread :-

    "I can't believe I'm about to post a comment about fish fingers. Ye gods.
    Hoki are, I believe, more sustainable these days than either haddock or cod.
    Yummy too, and Birds Eye do them"

    I'll be trying some soon, Thanks!

  8. At 03:13 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:
      She forgot the spiders!
    I am sitting in my office considering What seems an intractable problem. Watching a fly buzzing at the window, Trying desperately to reach the world, On the other side.

    After wand'ring the impenetrable surface,
    It tries following another plane,
    Running at right angles (the open door),
    Finds the edge and flies round it,
    And through and away.

    An unusually clever fly,
    It will probably be eaten,
    By one of the dozen or so,
    Busily hunting swallows.

    But maybe not.
    It would have starved in here,
    Or been eaten by a spider.


  9. At 03:26 PM on 23 Oct 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Patricia, (if you're reading this nonsence (sic))

    The blog isn't becoming full of people taking about what interests them, if you look right back to eddie's first post, you'll see it's always been like this. In fact there are more serious posts now than there ever were in the early days.

    As for PM itself, if you want "just the facts" you can hang on a bit and listen to the Six O'Clock News. for myself I like the mix of light-hearted pieces and fairly hard interviews.

    Carry on Eddie!

  10. At 03:30 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Fifi (6)

    Your last posting was scarily serious. Stop it!

    Next thing you know, you'll be talking to yourself....

    ;oD

  11. At 03:35 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Ah, timing is everything: jonnie's Fifi quote at 7, right after Fifi herself!

  12. At 03:41 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Want serious? Try Newsnight:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/

    Perhaps we should mount a frogman sabotage mission sometime?
    xx
    ed

  13. At 03:52 PM on 23 Oct 2006, silver-fox wrote:

    Terrific blog.

  14. At 03:54 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I agree Kitty.

    Nobody doubts Eddie's journalistic skills. And he does some killer interviews, without being openly aggressive ... trapping the hapless interviewee into letting slip more of the truth than he or she intended.

    Yet he's got a lightness of touch that we all respond to. I first noticed it back on BH when I realised every single weather forecast, at any time of year, finished with the purred advice to: 'Do wrap up.'

    Current affairs can be infuriating, depressing, worrying. As long as we don't feel patronised, or that the truth is being hidden from us, the present mix of light and dark is spot-on.

    'Broken News' hasn't yet reached Radio Four....

    Ooh, I am serious today! What's got into me??

  15. At 03:57 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    re Spiders and Flies:

    Round here, the spiders are definitely on the increase, whilst the fly and swallow populations have remained static, or even declined.

    Result: A temporary increase in spider webs = more activity for the cobweb brush, but ultimately the spider population will decline due to the unsustainabiliity of their numbers (see static fly population and imagine householder frustration)

    Whoever said this blog isn't informative?

  16. At 04:01 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    If Patricia wants serious she need only look at the blog on the Veil to see that informed discussion can be a part of a frogger's life. However, in common with the Cat and others, I prefer a mix of serious and light hearted. Actually...light headed too. So pull up a walnut whip and enjoy.

  17. At 04:07 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Patricia Eliot.

    Do you exist? Are you real?

  18. At 04:08 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Alexander wrote:

    I believe Patricia is missing the point of a 'blog' and should immediately engage in further research on the subject.

    The PM programme consistently presents the days news in an educated, astute and analytical format. I have not observed any decrease in quality, and indeed see a presenter and team who know their audience very VERY well (alarming use of capitals, I apologise).

    Unless Patricia's post is a cynical BBC scam to extract our undying devotion to the programme (perhaps Eddie's latest performance appraisal made reference to the drinks cabinet exposed by CQ), in which case we've all been fooled.

  19. At 04:11 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Luc wrote:

    Patricia,

    This blog doesn't need to be more serious.
    Perhaps you need a little bit more nonsense in your life?


    luc

  20. At 04:11 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    I would like to respond to Patricia and to PM. PM is a lively web blog and an alternative to some of the serious commercial medium.

  21. At 04:12 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    ...un-newsworthy topics eh Patricia..? Okay, let's add some depth to our thoughts and comments. Good idea.

    Allow me to give a brief synopsis, as I see it, of the oil situation here in the U.S. A topic which actually does interest me greatly even though I'm undoubtedly a very sad person indeed...

    A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in America.

    Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil.

    We just didn't know we were getting low.

    The reason for that is purely geographical.

    Our OIL is located in Alaska, California, Oklahoma and Texas

    Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington DC...

  22. At 04:18 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    Talking about intelligence or the lack of it, as we now seem to be doing, the other day a Doctor friend told me that "Intelligent people have more zinc and copper in their hair".

    I told him that was twaddle because I haven't got any ha..

    Oh, oh, I've just realised... Doubtless, Patricia does too...

  23. At 04:20 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Silver-fox (13)

    Are you terribly shy? Or a chatbot? We hear so little from you, and always the same encouraging sentiment.

    Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze say more! It's such a lovely name, I want to believe you're real!

    Pretty please? ;o)

  24. At 04:27 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    Never in the field of human blog has so much been communicated by so few to so many.

  25. At 04:36 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Lance Lyde wrote:

    I call my grandad spider man. Because he can't get out of the bath.

  26. At 04:38 PM on 23 Oct 2006, ian wrote:

    Dear Patricia

    This is the internet. Please don't sully it with your desire for seriousitude. Would you prefer it if we talked about stuff that doesn't interest us at all?

  27. At 04:45 PM on 23 Oct 2006, piper wrote:

    ... If Patricia feels that the PM feature on Big Ben was nonsense, perhaps she should read my own posting yesterday on the very topic of bells and the part they occasionally "play" in the lives of everyday people.

    Surprised she hasn't complimented me on the article.

    Just couldn't quite get the "fish-fingers" and "Parrots" into the plot. I did try ...

  28. At 04:48 PM on 23 Oct 2006, RobbieDo wrote:

    Hey Silver-fox (13)

    Terrific name!

    But can you keep the comments a bit shorter and to the point.

  29. At 04:58 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    Patricia,

    You ask what Eddie's bosses would think of his use of his blog. This is what Eddie wrote to me and John at 1.50 pm on 20 October after we felt slightly manoeuvred into seriousness in "Veils":

    Believe it or not, the "bosses" do not interfere in the blog, and I would tell you if they did! I've had no instructions to do anything - I just happen to like, and I think YOU like - a healthy mix of the important and the silly. I have no big schemes for the blog other than to do what we've been doing...trying things out, failing, trying other things. It may interweave with the programme more - or it may diverge. I love it because it's like a living breathing thing...and is impossible to predict.

    And so say all of us. Where else, Patricia, will you find (actually quite intelligent) debate about technological matters, about spiders, twizzling duvets and all manner of interesting things, interleaved with great poetry from Ed and the Burns Unit and a bit of fun about chocolate. Believe it or not, we are all very well equipped in the top storey but sometimes choose to be warm and friendly. Anything but sad.

    Btw Big Sis at 15 - there are always more spiders around, I find, in Spring and especially Autumn; I think it's something to do with the weather. A well-informed person on a previous thread told me that all the spiders are female at this time of year.

  30. At 05:00 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Wolf wrote:

    The PM programme, the blog, the newsletter all benefit from a good dose of irreverence.

    That's what makes it amusing at times, but no less serious. If memory serves, upon annoucement of his candicay for Libdem leadership, Menzies Campbell was asked by Eddie Mair straight out how much he drinks. That was funny (well, I did chortle.) It was nevertheless a very valid point.

    While the news is treated with the respect it deserves (bar the occasional antediluvian mystery word), Eddie Mair doesn't seem to take himself too seriously.

    Neither do we. Try a bit of that, Patricia, it's called a sense of humour.

    best,

    Wolf

    PS. Can we have another go at mystery words?

  31. At 05:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Lance Lyde (25),

    Very good. I suspect you are Lee Vitout, btw.

    Fifi, TSSCAT, I agree.

    The post that was rejected earlier referred to a guy I heard on a local radio phone-in complaining that people who rant on radio phone-ins have nothing better to do than get angry about nothing very much (slightly stronger than that but I don't want to be modded again). I can't credit him with irony - but hope the same need not be said of Patricia.

    I shall also say again - we are all sad sometimes. To deny that is to deny the human condition.

  32. At 05:07 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ian(26), Quick - capitalise 'Internet' or the pedants will get you! :)

  33. At 05:07 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Balther wrote:

    Piper (21)

    ROTFLMAO

    Reminds me of another one,
    Piper (21)

    ROTFLMAO

    Reminds me of another one,

    The problem with political jokes is that they get elected!

    I personally enjoy the fact that this blog has so many active and varied participants. And as far as I can see PM were mixing 'hard news' with 'nonsense' long before the blog the created.

    I have a feeling that maybe Patricia would feel the strap line should be 'PM now with added nonsense!'

    I'd like to suggest
    PM - The show you can listen to between the news without ruining your appetite.

    or

    PM - Won't feel you up like other news programmes.

  34. At 05:09 PM on 23 Oct 2006, David wrote:

    Absolutely, Patricia.

    Personally, I wouldn't comment on any blog whose moderation standards are so low as to let my comments through.

    What's more, there has been disappointingly little comment on the really big news item last week: that Jacques Chirac drinks Mexican beer.

  35. At 05:11 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I've just remembered - my missing post also noted my support for John H's third theory (@ 5): A third possibility might be that he's responding to Patricia's comment about being skootered - by promoting the comment to status of "blog entry" thus cementing its pointlessness as a defining feature. This is because Eric is in my good books today, for no particular reason.

  36. At 05:12 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Ah Patricia... what do you do for fun - wear your darkgreen headscarf instead of your maroon one?

    :O)

  37. At 05:27 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    ... this one's for Patricia. An exercise for those little grey cells. Serious stuff. And, let's face it, without the PM Blog, how would she ever have been able to check her powers of reasoning..?

    You are driving in a car at a constant speed.

    On your left hand side there is a valley and on your right hand side there is a fire engine travelling at the same speed as you.

    In front of you there is a galloping pig which is the same size as your car and you cannot overtake it.

    Behind you there is a helicopter flying at ground level.

    Both the giant pig and the helicopter are travelling at the same speed as you.

    What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?


    .(Scroll down)
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .Get off the merry-go-round - you're drunk!

  38. At 05:27 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Hang on a mo... Fish Fingers, yes, but when were we talking about Parrots????

    btw silver-fox, your comments are always welcome here ;-)

  39. At 05:40 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Lesley B wrote:

    Have a heart guys - you've given poor old Patricia a right pasting....now it don't suppose she'll be back...

  40. At 05:56 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Hey, Eric just read out my email at the end of the prog!

    Oh, and Patricia ... it was a serious comment about the Bill to make absolutely everyone who ever has any contact with children have to be vetted first.

    Hah!

    I'm off to be smug for the rest of the evening now.

    Repeat after me:

    'Eddie Mair said my name....'
    'Eddie Mair said my name....'
    'Eddie Mair said my name....'

  41. At 06:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    I read so many other political blogs on occasioin. This is the one I come back to every time. Something to do with the fact that real people chat!! And show so much sense. (Truly).

  42. At 06:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Hmm, Eric, are you stirrin it?

    btw, get the proof-readers in

    Oh, and, Patricia, you missed the amphibian wedding.

  43. At 06:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    On the contrary Lesley B (39, at present), I think everyone has "differed politely" from Patricia - no pasting at all. But she probably hasn't read any of it.

  44. At 06:06 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Piper wrote:

    (39) ...and your point Lesley would be..?

  45. At 06:07 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I agree with Lesley B (39). This could get too much like bullying.

    Unless my latest conspiracy theory is correct, of course...

    And Patricia Grumbleforthe Elliott was in fact a BBC 'plant', to see how we'd respond to a nip around the ankles.

    On most blogs, that kind of thing triggers a nasty bit of name-calling, before the moderator wades in to pull the warring bloggers apart.

    Here? We all had a good laugh and got back to the serious business of flexing our frogs.

    One of which was deemed good enough to get read out on the prog tonight, hurrah! Rather proving my point...

  46. At 06:11 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Charles Hatton wrote:

    I stand and salute the gentle, informed and downright silly folk who contribute here. Long may we (dam busters theme swells) gather here and pass the time of day (smiling children march into shot waving flags) with the good folk of Internetland. We, the people, (enter firemen, lollypop ladies and guide dogs) will not be suppressed by (cut to granny, wiping away a tear) a faceless enemy.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Eddie Mair!

    (thunderous applause, women swooning, several burly men heaving BBC Charter onto hastily erected bonfire).

  47. At 06:25 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Fran O - what amphibian wedding??

  48. At 06:29 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Mmmm, Charles Hatton, I rather think we're talking about 'Damn Bloggers'

  49. At 06:40 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Btw Fellow Froggers, it's ok to eat the sandwiches I made (in the fridge) as the Salmonella has just about gone :O)

    But don't have them before your dinner, you'll spoil your appetite.

    There's amaretto cheesecake for dessert.

  50. At 06:56 PM on 23 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Chris the pickle (36)

    Thanks for that -- the funniest thing I've heard all day! Can't stop laughing :-))))

  51. At 07:02 PM on 23 Oct 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    Chris, how lovely - but they will spoil my appetite - got a lovely roast dinner on the way.
    Do you think they'll be okay tomorrow for lunch?

  52. At 07:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Dear Fifi, I bet you're feeling great now. Enjoy your evening.
    A few years ago, on a phone in, I had the inestimable pleasure of being interviewed by Lord Mair (I had been expecting Nick Ross - but who needs him?) I still remember that occasion with great warmth. Great interviewer, nice guy.

  53. At 08:39 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    evening, just got back from three hours sitting in traffic.

    David (34), that's effectively Groucho Marx's quip.

    Chris tP, before I left, you were much earlier in the comments, now down to 36 - how did you get through the Borg so quickly?

    Lesley B (39), welcome, but we're not ganging up on Patricia, simply suggesting she should lighten up.

    Fifi (40), it is possible to record, via listen again, Eddie reading out your name and email, so you can listen again, and again, and again. Methinks Apertif may be a little envious...

    Big Sis(52), why cannot Corrie Corfield/Seegreen do phone-in interviews; even Sue Lawley would do it for me.

  54. At 08:43 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Jonnie - you're welcome! *Curtsies graciously*

    Ledge - Yes, they'll be fine... Do you want the roast chicken ones or the salmon?

    I'm being spoiled with a luvverly chicken casserole made by luvverly hubby, bless his cotton-rich socks.

  55. At 09:02 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    John W - who knows what kind of warped mind is behind the erratic numbering of our frogofferings? Not Eddie's I'm sure; hes's far too suave and organised?!?

    It's probably to do with the ujimafangle getting tangled up with the wotsthethingy... or something.

  56. At 09:23 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Piper (37),

    Sorry to be a total pedant, but it's constant angular velocity, not speed on a roundabout. The fire engine to your side is actually going slower, but has the same angular velocity as it's nearer the centre, so keeps up with you ...etc....

    Oh dear, another veil lifted on the boring persona that is JW....but then I am the the last of the old fogies.


  57. At 09:23 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Whoops. try again:

    Piper (37),

    Sorry to be a total pedant, but it's constant angular velocity, not speed on a roundabout. The fire engine to your side is actually going slower, but has the same angular velocity as it's nearer the centre, so keeps up with you ...etc....

    Oh dear, another veil lifted on the boring persona that is JW....but then I am the the last of the old fogies.


  58. At 09:27 PM on 23 Oct 2006, patricia Elliot wrote:

    It certainly seems that my comment was elevated for maximum effect.

    It also seems that my initial view of this Blog was founded, indeed the comments above remind me of a game I once played at school called 'Follow my leader', I know you will all be familiar with it.

    Oh thank goodness I have far more worthy ways of spending my life than sitting in front of a screen whiling the hours away with petty comments. I leave you all with something to ponder :-

    Time and tide wait for no one! one day you may all regret your wasted hours.

  59. At 09:30 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Hi JW

    The link didn't work :O(

  60. At 09:41 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    John W (53),

    I would be envious of Fifi's success (and congratulations Fifi; you are right to be proud), but, as I've said before, Eddie read out an email of mine a few weeks back, when I was cross with a woman from Superdrug who was bleating on about VAT on sunscreen.

    He has brushed my name with his lips. Life has a point after all...

  61. At 09:53 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Goodness, Patricia Elliot (assuming your first name is usually capitalised) - to my mind, being serious, critical and small-minded wastes just as much time as having light-hearted fun. What do I know, though, I'm a mere human...

    How did you manage to read our Blog without wasting precious time, I wonder??

  62. At 09:56 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    The link is still not working JW.

    This is far too late for me. How are we going to get round the clock emailing if I don't wake up properly in the morning? Or rather the cats and puppy who wake me so promptly?

  63. At 09:59 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Re Oh thank goodness I have far more worthy ways of spending my life than sitting in front of a screen whiling the hours away with petty comments.

    LOL.

  64. At 10:05 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    Oh, come on Patricia, we are all people who perform wonderful and original deeds every day and spend a few minutes having fun on the net. Who are you to criticise?
    Or maybe you have dyspepsia? In which case the NHS may help.

  65. At 10:06 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    Love the strapline

  66. At 10:06 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Lola wrote:

    Do you think that Tobias has had a sex change and is now calling himself Patricia?

  67. At 10:28 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Lola - lol!!

    Ditto Appy - my thoughts exactly...

    Patricia Bellyache, more like.

  68. At 10:32 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Charles Hatton wrote:

    Patricia (58)

    Since when has talking to people been a waste of time?

  69. At 10:53 PM on 23 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    I'm with Patricia! What was I thinking?? What on earth have I been doing with my life??
    I should get out there - talk with real people! Yes real people who talk about real stuff like erm Poetry and wildlife and politics and technology and laugh at the world and and and....

    just what exactly do you think we talk about here?

    and Roberto (20) - you are a genius!
    "an alternative to some of the serious commercial medium."

    Never thought I'd see the "commercial medium" accused of seriousness!! yet you are entirely right!

    and if big shouts are going out - Charles H - loved 46. made me laugh!
    Which Patricia, is sometimes enough. And this is merely a posting not a pasting - although we like our flaming nonsense we're far too civilised to go in for all that "flaming" nonsense...

  70. At 10:56 PM on 23 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Rosalind,

    Try the second attempt. Or the name, I usually get that right. I forgot a " sign first time round. Touchy the PM blog.

    -----

    Well I will for one will say, Welcome Patrica E, but lighten up. My last frog disappeared, but the point was, as others have said, we're all human. Even if it took me 40 years to accept it.

  71. At 11:18 PM on 23 Oct 2006, simon th' slammer wrote:

    Lady Patricia chillout on account o' thar will nobody givin' yo' rewards when yo' arrive at th' gates of hevvin.

    Yo' hafta grab it now lady pat. lissen t'yer he'pers bloggin' away an' tryin' t'give he'p yo' up th' stairs.

    Chillout Lady Pat witcher main mad as a weasel in a blender eddie th' blogmaster.

    Nevah lissened t'yer show eddie but yo' soun' a right fine guy pullin' th' bess discs an' livenin' up th' wo'ld, cuss it all t' tarnation. Hey yo' varmints yo' haf th' right fineess names. Simon th' slammer

  72. At 11:28 PM on 23 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Hey Patricia,

    Always look on the bright side, at least you proved that you were right all along -- so no time wasted eh ??

    Now I've got my Mantra sorted for tonight

    Time and tide
    Time and tide
    Time and tide
    Time and tide
    Time and tide

  73. At 11:39 PM on 23 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    Patricia - just so you know this blog hasn't been a waste of my life, after trawling back over past posts I realise that I wrote my first ever haikus here!

    I know I know, pretty special.

    You'll have to go back to "Newsletter" to find them. I think you'll agree that I get better as i flex my poetic wings... I'm particularly proud of a couple - I may self publish.

  74. At 11:48 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I absolutely support Patricia’s wish to express these views here, as they fit in with the ‘serious’ aspect of this little endeavour. And the fact that they have generated a whole new debate is all to the good. Stick around and keep raising the important issues, Patricia, and you’ll find that you get some of the kind of responses you desire. You might well get some ‘silly’ stuff, too - some of it will be from me, and indeed some from Dr Muir himself (by which I mean Eddie Mair) - but that is not all you will get. Perhaps you could just ignore those bits that offend?

  75. At 11:51 PM on 23 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    By the way - thanks (32)...

  76. At 01:27 AM on 24 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Eddie,

    Just been catching up on some telly and off to bed

    Noticed you didn't get many comments on your two audio out takes -- even I didn't comment, -- but on behalf of all the froggers I'd like to say how much we all enjoyed listening to them and thanks for the stirling effort in getting gthem on the blog.

    Now, all we need is an easy way to find them - when we need cheering up! Is there not a little niche on the PM homepage where they could hide. Do have a word won't you, when you get around to it. Thanks!

  77. At 01:38 AM on 24 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    And a quickie :-

    Lovely last posting Whist (69) and re: the comments on Roberto from the states :-)

    Goodness what a night owl I'm becoming - and it was only News 24 ... Honest!

    It'll be hell at breakfast time

  78. At 07:03 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    Good morning everyone.

  79. At 07:38 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Morning all.

    Welcome Simon th' S; there's a thought. DJ Eddie.

  80. At 07:45 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Kevin wrote:

    Hi , John W (56) from another Manx frogger

  81. At 08:28 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Patricia,
    I'm sorry you feel that coming here is a waste of your time. I realise we may not be as serious (or SHOUTY) as other blogs both here on the Beeb and elsewhere. However, it does tend to reflect the nature of PM as a broadcast. Eddie (and Carolyn) tend to have a dry, understated way of puncturing pomposity when they are interviewing people. Even Eddie, in his second ever blog, said:

    "By the way, I've noted some concern in the comment columns that some people think bloggers have nothing to say and that this will be a waste of everyone's time. Let me make this quite clear. I have nothing to say and this will be a waste of everyone's time. Really."

    So I believe that our responses, which as others above have pointed out can range from the profoundly serious to the seriously silly, arte in keeping with the tone of PM (which is not the News, that comes at 6pm). We're a group of people who are hanging around in a virtual room, chatting. Like any gathering, there's times we'll be talking about the state of the world, and times when we're just having fun. I do hope you decide to stay and join in...

  82. At 08:51 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    btw Morning all!

    Charles (46) I bow to a genius! That had me ROFL last night :D

    Nice to see the Kate O'Mara strapline again (I know I know... Oooh Err before anyone else says it)

    Who's turn is it to get the chocolate, biccies, and crisps?

  83. At 09:22 AM on 24 Oct 2006, F.T. Fong, Kuala Lumpa, Malaysia wrote:

    Patricia,

    I've 'blogged'. Oh yes I've done it and what's more I was happy to do it.

  84. At 09:33 AM on 24 Oct 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    Do I really want to waste even a precious second commenting on Patricia E?

    What a silly woman!

  85. At 09:40 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Kate O'Mara wrote:

    I love the strapline!

  86. At 09:40 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    John W (53) - While Seagreen and Corrie may do it for you, I rather think that unlikely for me(it is Sister, not Brother, after all!)

  87. At 09:41 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    FF(82) I've put hobnobs and a toblerone in the kitchen but the crisps had too high a salt content to be healthy.

  88. At 09:43 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Kate O'Mara wrote:

    I love the strapline!

  89. At 09:52 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    Morning all

    Is Patricia real? Or are we all just figments of Eddie's fevered imagination?

    Anyway, it is (mostly) our own time we are spending here and no-one forces us to hang around.

    Tunnock's wafers with coffee today?

    Off to dust down the knitting machine and get on with the Christmas knitting I've been putting off, then to plant some garlic.

    See you later

  90. At 10:02 AM on 24 Oct 2006, ian wrote:

    We weren't accused of talking about parrots. We were accused of talking about Parrotts, by which I assume is a reference to the snooker great John Parrott and his family. I'm doubly sure it wasn't parrots, as I tried to feed mine a cuttlefish-finger last night and it didn't approve at all.

  91. At 10:03 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    OnTheLedge (84),

    But you did spend quite a bit of time commenting yesterday - comment (1); or else you are a victim of identity fraud!

  92. At 10:04 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    Morning froggies.

    Re Patricia. Has she gone?

    I guess I should hope not, but I'm not too keen on people who try to make me feel small and silly and useless and a waste of time.

    So I think I'll just hang around here.

    Btw - newsletter never arrived, Eddie. Send a different owl next time.

  93. At 10:27 AM on 24 Oct 2006, patricia Elliot wrote:

    Well it does weem that Mr Mair has found his Clan. I wonder what Mr Hardcastle and Derek Cooper would have thought though ?

    With interest I note that the majority of the contributors (for want of a better word) seem to hide behind ridiculous invented pseudonames often obscuring their sex.

    Any person with sufficient intelligence to glance at the wonderful debating at the Newsnight weblog regarding Iraq, will see that one doesn't need to do this unless one is embarassed about the contribution they have made. Even Mr Alvarez - Galloso has put an interesting point regarding our armed forces.

    To the contributor referred to as 'OnTheLedge, I have one thing to say

    Like fire, words can either burn or warm - without a name however the effect is quite neutral.

    To the person called Whisht : God never puts anyone in a place too small to grow in.

    And as for the person referred to as Fifi, how sad my dear, that a mere mention from the presenter can bring such hapiness.

    The Internet offers a wealth of information, and highly intelligent people. It takes time to hunt these places out but remember you 'become' the people that you mix with.

    Measure wealth not by the things you have, but by the things you have for which you would not take money

    P Elliot


  94. At 10:31 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Oh well, seems as if Patricia (on one side) and the rest of us (on t'other) will have to regard each other as lost causes.

    Shame.

    But I think I can live with it! ;oD

  95. At 10:51 AM on 24 Oct 2006, andycragg wrote:

    Missy Elliot : ... remember you 'become' the people that you mix with.

    You'd better not spend too much time here then :)

  96. At 10:58 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    What does it say about somebody that they should come into a public discussion, criticise everybody for the style of their contributions, read the responses and then criticise some more? Isn't that a bit like butting into a conversation amongst friends in the pub, telling everybody they're talking rubbish and that they are utterly pointless people for discussing the things they are?

    I'm glad I don't associate with many people like 'p' - I don't think my fragile ego could handle it.

  97. At 10:59 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Patricia (93),

    I was prepared to welcome you, but now wonder if I should bother to reply to your latest. If you only want serious debate, fine, go elsewhere. This blog was, from the start, not set up to be serious. I'm fed up to the back teeth with the situation in Iraq, and, probably like many others here, could sound off for hours with our views. Many serious blogs are just that, no real debate or challenging of other's opinions, just sounding off.

    But I prefer to keep my blood pressure down. I wouldn't spend time on this blog unless I wanted to, if you think I'm sad for that, as you appear to do of others, I therefore think the same of you.

    For your information, (as has been revealled before), I too hide behind a pseudonym. But I am intelligent, having the certificatates and publications to prove that point...I cannot be bothered to continue with this one.

  98. At 11:00 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    I am sorry that Patricia feels obliged to "educate" us with such a patronising, "holier-than-thou" approach. Having just checked out the Newsnight blog I can see why the PM version is so popular. The discussion on Iraq was largely constructed of futile airings that do little to clarify or solve the issue, while comments such as "bring Saddam back" show a deal less sensitivity than a call for walnut whips does on these pages. There now; you've done it Patricia. You've made me serious and I don't feel any the better. Silliness must always have a place on this site so I offer an old fashioned raspberry in response.

  99. At 11:02 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    OnTheLedge (84),

    You were right the second time.

  100. At 11:04 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Walter Wall-Carpet wrote:

    (93)

    ¿Que?

  101. At 11:13 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Welcome back, Patricia.

    And to the person called Dr Hackenbush, ...? (74)

  102. At 11:23 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Sara wrote:

    To Mrs P Elliot

    Madam,

    I find the patronising tone of your latest comment quite offensive.

    You obviously do not wish to mix with people unlike yourself for fear of "becoming like them" so the God you see fit to "quote" to Whisht (and presumably the rest of us) is clearly a keen supporter of middle class values and ambitions.

    Not my God, then.

    Where on earth did you find the cosy little saying expressed in your final sentence? Since true wealth and possessions are entirely unrelated it makes no sense at all.

    I have surprised myself! but I am in fact very annoyed by your self-righteous intervention in this blog.

    Sara

  103. At 11:37 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Delores Behan-Ingland (Mrs) wrote:

    Come on, you've got to admit it. Patricia Elliot does have a fair point. After all, this is the BBC you know, with Eric, a Sony Radio Academy award winning presenter no less. Perhaps this blog should be more serious..

    ...and another thing - you'll not catch me hiding behind a silly name.

  104. At 11:43 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Patricia,
    I've just been over to the serious stuff at "Talk About Newsnight", "A Blog and Forum"!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/
    They've stolen the idea without any credit to the original Frog.

    Shameless! Though I do agree that the erudite "Mr Alvarez - Galloso has put an interesting point regarding our armed forces." on the Iraq frog:
    "Withdraw"
    Congratulations fifi, but did he read it in a suitably soft western accent?
    xx
    ed

  105. At 11:51 AM on 24 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Has somebody not turned up for work this morning? I can't believe that nobody has responded to this since half ten. Partly because I know I have.

  106. At 11:53 AM on 24 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Ah, there it is. The name-calling begins.

    Moderator? The gloves, please...

  107. At 12:05 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Know what? I think it's time we all complained officially about that comment. The sentiments may be valid - it's a matter of opinion - but there's no excuse for being downright rude.

    Patricia -- I feel sorry for you. We've tried to make you welcome, and you've not even met us halfway.

    Normally I would have suggested you lead by example: calm down and post what you regard as 'quality' comments that merit your time and intellectual effort. Impress us (rather than insult us) into pulling up our socks, if you think you can.

    But after that little outburst, I invite you to ... [self moderation forbids!]. But do it elsewhere. Then WE won't annoy YOU any more, and vice versa.

    Nobody made you come.

  108. At 12:13 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    This debate certainly appears to have upset some of you.

  109. At 12:13 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Ed (104)

    Oh yes... he certainly did. My accent's not that different from his but my voice isn't as sexy!

    And thank you for asking, kind sir.

    ;o)

  110. At 12:15 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    I sincerely hope and trust that this Forum does not degenerate into a mealy mouthed, backbiting, cruelly flaming bitchiness.........oh alright them. But I do think the use of such abusive terms as "moderator" should be moderated off.

  111. At 12:18 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    (103) Delores Behan-Ingland (Mrs)

    Priceless!

    Welcome, dear Delores, you are a true frogger.

    Are you one of the Hampshire Behan-Inglands?

  112. At 12:24 PM on 24 Oct 2006, ian wrote:

    Patricia.

    No doubt your god will punish us for our joyful living at the appropriate time. Please don't try to take Fifi's joy away from her just because the source of her happiness doesn't meet with your approval. As your imaginary friend once said, judge not, lest you yourself be judged.

    PS Surely claiming that your name is both Patricia and Elliot is another way to obscure ones gender?

  113. At 12:25 PM on 24 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Big Sister (86),

    True, but with Aper and fifi swooning over Eddie mentioning their contrubutions, was just pointing out my desert-island-which announcer-I-would-want-to-read-out-my- entry... unlike someone I could mention, we all have our own choices and favourates.

  114. At 12:58 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

    Remember Patricia,

    "A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones".

  115. At 12:58 PM on 24 Oct 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Patricia,

    You are right about the silly names. I hereby hang my head in shame about my absurd psuedonym. My real name is in fact:

    Humphrey Tobermory McGigaflop-shoeburyness...

    ...The Third.

    I humbly ask forgiveness from all my fellow froggers for this deception.

    Cat

  116. At 01:07 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Fifi,
    "Nobody made you come."
    Maybe that's the problem.
    xx
    ed

  117. At 01:19 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    Goodness Patricia, patronising and humourless. What a shame.

    I suppose we must be thankful that we have only had this one. Mind you many more like her and we would all leave.

    And there is so much understated wit here (although not from me, not clever enough, but at least I know enough to appreciate it).

  118. At 01:32 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Delores Behan-Ingland (Mrs) wrote:

    Why thank you fifi (111). That's so sweet of you.
    No I'm not part of the Hampshire Behan-Inglands, well at least, I don't think I am. I did have a second cousin in West Dorset though, and my father was the only jewish scotsman in the Irish Fusiliers. But that was a long time ago.

    Thanks for the welcome.

  119. At 01:44 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Humph wrote:

    Hello Patricia

    You claim that many of the contributors to this blog hide behind silly pseudonames (pseudonyms?) to hide their sex. Pseudonyms can be used to convey the type of people that we are, or wish to be, better than a name given to us by someone who had only just met us and who had no idea what sort of person we would be years later. Speaking personally, my nom-de-keyboard is also my real name. It is what people at work call me. It is what people at home call me. It is what people at the pub call me. It is what the lady in the newsagents calls me. You are correct that you cannot tell whether I am a woman or man but that was never a problem when I started to use it years ago. I do not see what difference it makes to this forum whether you can tell the gender of the contributors and so will not declare myself here.

    I do not contribute to this forum as much as I would like. I do not have internet access at home and so can only read the entries at work when I am not supposed to be doing other things. That means that I read the previous night’s entries when I get in, before my starting time. I will then catch up with what is happening during coffee and lunch breaks. I could stick around after my paid time is finished but tend not to as most of the froggers are listening to Mr. Mayor on the PM programme.

    I like it here. I like reading the contributions of the regulars here as their sense of fun and frivolity appeals to my sense of humour. If that makes me sad then I am sad, in a fun sort of way. Rather like the current fashion of calling something “wicked” when you mean “good”.

    Lastly all, some or none of the above is true. Unless you meet me, you will never know. If you read the regulars on this forum you will get to know what sort of people they are. But it is the nature of the internet, be it blog-zone, e-mail or web-page that you have to apply trust that we are being honest. If someone claims to enjoy the fact that there name, or pseudonym, is read out on a national broadcast, what is that to you?

    And now, I need to get back to work.

    H.

  120. At 02:00 PM on 24 Oct 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Kate,

    I loved the strapline

  121. At 02:07 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Balther wrote:

    Dr Hackenbush (108)

    I don't think it's the debate that's upset people, it's the lack of debate and the very insulting nature of Patricia Elliots' post that has got peoples backs up, she comments that this blog is not serious enough for her to which people explain their position on the concept of nonsense within the context of this blog. She then tries to carry her argument buy comparing us to other frogs and then personally attacking members of the blog. If thats the level of debate on the 'other' frogs then I'm glad I'm here.

    Hmm using personal attacks when you realise that no-one agrees with you maybe Patricia Elliot is a politician?

  122. At 02:52 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    For those with a (questionable) sense of humour
    and nothing better to do than frog...
    xx
    ed

  123. At 03:18 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

    Ms Patricia,

    "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others".

  124. At 03:25 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Patricia (93), it appears that you do not understand fully the concept of a dialogue. Your last posting made no attempt to adress the points raised by myself or any of the other regular posters here regarding the nature of blogging. This seems at odds with your stated view at the beginning that there was a lack of debate here. If you want to debate, you have to engage with the points raised by the others in the discussion. If not, then we descend into Punch & Judy name-calling, which serves no purpose at all. There is room here for all wanting to take part, but arguing for the sake of it (which is how your posts appear to me) just wastes time and energy...

    Regarding the issue with names you've raised. I work in the IT industry, and I will often use a name other than my own for reasons of personal security. It's not un-common to do this. I notice that your name is the exact match for both an actress and an author. Can you confirm that this is just a co-incidence?

    On a separate note: Can anyone else get into todays' blog to post comments? It says there's 7 comments there, but I can't get in to see them....

  125. At 03:37 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Wolf wrote:

    I wonder, is my name considered a "ridiculous invented pseudoname"? Because it's not. I suffered throughout primary school for it.

    Wolf

  126. At 03:45 PM on 24 Oct 2006, ian wrote:

    I've now commented on the Newsnight frog too. I fear this act may have caused Patricia's world to implode.

    Ed-116. You're very naughty.

  127. At 04:18 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    I have always been a bit iffy (as opposed to Fifi) about bloggers using silly names.

    Then I discovered the PM frog and suddenly it all made sense.

    Can anyone who DIDN'T hear... blah ... blah ... guess my name?

    Clue: it's really, really obvious.

    Oh, and the new website link is for my band. I could have put the work one on there but how boring is that!!

  128. At 04:21 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Horseface wrote:

    Speaking of schoolyard names....understandable though.

  129. At 04:43 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Thisismyreal(female)name. wrote:

    Does anyone else think that Patricia resembles Margo Ledbetter in spirit?

  130. At 05:21 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    I would still like to know why Eric chose to highlihht Patricia's comments.

    Come on, Mr Mair, you know we won't be fobbed off...

  131. At 05:38 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Ed Iglefart wrote:

    Now the blog is remembering all the wrong names!

    Help! It was'nae me, honest. It musta been the bugs.

  132. At 06:05 PM on 24 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Wolf, currently 125, probably slightly better than "Woof".

    Frances, 130, I stand by my three suggestions @5. All of them. All at the same time!

  133. At 06:26 PM on 24 Oct 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    Ms small p big E

    I note your comment addressed to me:

    "To the contributor referred to
    as 'OnTheLedge, I have one thing to say
    Like fire, words can either burn or warm - without a name however the effect is quite neutral"

    Your point being .....?

  134. At 07:17 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    “Words can either burn or warm”? I’d recommend sticking a radiator on - it’s surely a more reliable way to take the chill off in the evening.

  135. At 08:18 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Ed (116) - Hee hee!! I thought something similar, but was too frightened to put it!

    PATRICIA - I AM SHOUTING AS YOU SEEM TO HARD OF HEARING - WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE LIKE IT; TAKE A HINT AND START LIKING IT TOO!! IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO START ENJOYING LIFE :O)

    Ooo, that's better, it's gone quiet again...

    I've got some chocolate snowmen here; bit early I know... they're on the desk. Oh, and some freshly made hot choc with cream...

  136. At 08:41 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ed (116) - ROTFL (truly) - it occurred to me too, but I was still surprised to see it.

    Fifi - wow! You've got John Taylor on bass! I was devoted to him when he was in Duran Duran (I was too young to know better) - he looks quite different now though...

    Btw, dear fellow regulars - we clearly have a badly-behaved attention seeker hanging around. Like a child stamping its feet (s)he really is best ignored.

    I missed the programme this evening folks - is it worth a listen again?

  137. At 09:11 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Hey Appy! (135) You've been quiet! I hope it's been because you've just been busy:-) btw, I could do with your sartorial guidance. I had a date on thursday, so guidance on what to wear and what to say would be gratefully appreciated!

    As for Ms P, I have a feeling she'll pop up every so often trolling for attention. The best thing to do is ignore here until she goes away....

  138. At 09:20 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    FFred - if you had a date on Thursday, isn't it too late now to worry about what to wear?? :O)

    I think ignoring PE is the best thing to do from now on in; she seems like a lost cause, bless.

    The hot choc's getting warm, so get a move on!

  139. At 09:29 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Oops, I meant have as I'm sure you'd guessed, CtheP:)

  140. At 10:06 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Yes, I know FFred... can I be nosey and ask where you're going on your date? If not, tell me to go away :)

  141. At 10:08 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    A date?! Tell me more - who is she? where did you meet her? how well do you know her already? where are you going???

    So many questions - but the clothes depend upon the responses you see. For now all I can say is - definitely more than a sock... ;)

  142. At 10:23 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Okay Appy & CtheP, I shall try to sate your curiosity...

    I shall be meeting her for drinks and a bite to eat at a local country pub/restaurant (called The Rose Revived) on Thursday at 6pm (after Eddie finishes!!)

    As for what I know about her... Well, I must admit that we've met through an introduction agency. I know how that sounds.. It's just that it's difficult to meet people when you're working and have little time... The plan is t meet up for a drink and a bite to eat, and we'll see how things work from there.

    btw, thanks for the positive thoughts Apps & CtheP. It means a lot to me :-)

  143. At 10:31 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Deepthought (formerly John W) wrote:

    As this is the Patricia thread,

    I decided to take a more silly frog name in response to her comments (which I'd thought of it earlier, though).

    FF, I've seen this before. Mention you're going on a date, all the women crowd round to find out all the gossip. You'll have to reveal all, and give a blow-by-blow (Appy, Fifi, Chris tP stop giggling there) of what happened etc etc.

    Do what I do. Keep schtum.

    For those who are too young, Deepthought was the computer set the task of finding the answer to life, the universe and everything, and came up with the answer 42. I've frequently been compared to robots/computers, so if you remember Orac or Marvin, you can see why I've made the choice this time.

  144. At 10:33 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I've just noticed, Fearless, that you asked about what to say too. Just be yourself! If she doesn't see how lovely you are she isn't the woman for you.

    P.S. If you bring her home (and don't on the first date, but if you do) please hang something over the knowhole - I might see before I realise what I'm looking at, if you see what I mean...

  145. At 10:43 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Ooo, FFred - is it the Rose Revived in Witney, Oxon? I used to go there in the hazy days of my RAF youth, and get merrily plastered on Babycham (yes, what a lightweight!!).

    It's prolly the one in Kent though is it? Haven't been to that one...

    Btw, you're welcome for whatever nice thing it was I said! Big hugs for Thursday, and just be yourself...

    xx

  146. At 10:55 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Ah, your 142 wasn't visible when I posted my last frog. Well, I should say just be interested in her, listen to what she has to say and be friendly. I know you know all of this already.

    For a country pub you don't want to be too dressed up - smart casual; wear something you've worn before (one is never sure one will be comfortable in new clothes and a first date is a bad time to find out that that tag itches your neck or the waist of your new jeans sits in the wrong place...) So long as you're clean and smart she'll probably be more worried about what she looks like anyway. Unless you really feel you wouldn't be you without it, don't wear anything with a slogan/band's name on it - too casual being only one of the reasons.

    If you knock a glass over with nerves, laugh it off; if you say something stupid, admit it was stupid and move on, but, above all make her think you're completely cool with who you are - and she's fabulous enough to join your gang (confidence - nort arrogance - is the biggest turn on there is).

    Gosh! Got a bit carried away - spouting the fairly obvious too. There you go Fearless, if it does work out with her you know how to charm me - but then you do that already... ;)

  147. At 10:58 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    aw shucks, Apps! (143) you are far too kind with your words! Are you trying to make me blush?!?

    Trust me, I'm not planning on anything like what you're suggesting on your p.s. (I think you know me well enough to believe me on that).

    If you want, you should be able to go through the flickering photos to get one of my email addresse and I can keep you updated without blocking up the frog :-) Either way, I promise I'll let you know how things go, honest!

  148. At 11:03 PM on 24 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    CtheP, it IS the Witney one! It's about 20 minutes or so away from both of us,
    . That's a bit scary, knowing that you know where I'll be on thursday evening on a date!!!

  149. At 11:52 PM on 24 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    Hi people

    am too busy during the days at the moment so only posting at ridulous time of night!

    As Patricia took the time to talk to me directly I feel it only polite to reply -
    Hi Patricia! Obviously you're really rather angry about a BBC blog (which all licence payers in one way or another have paid for) being used by people to chat and be frivolous as well as to discuss serious and personal issues. To my mind, this blog is a like any physical space (say a Church or a Community Centre or a public house) where people can do a number of things. The framework is there for us to discuss, reflect, think as well as meet our fellows, ask how they are doing and enjoy their company. I don't think any physical space only has one behaviour taking place within it. There is a true debate to be had about who is paying for the structure, but this wasn't your point so I won't go off on a tangent.

    I believe that your point was that this 'place' was a place for serious conversation and debate only. Well, lots of others (including ed - thanks for the links) have suggested places where indeed this is the only behaviour seemingly happening.
    To be honest, I'd rather not go to places where there isn't a mixture of debate and humour - hence trying to listen to PM when I can. Hence me sticking around in this place.

    I'd be interested in seeing if there really are debates in those places (I have posted before about the "Veils" blog how I think many commenters(?) say something but don't return to listen). I'm glad that you instead came back to enter into the conversation. Thankyou.

    As to your meaningful phrase I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what it means in relation to me - however, I am absolutely sure that you meant it with a good intention, so if you feel like expanding on it I'm absolutely up for listening. I just don't think of myself as constrained in life to think that I can't grow. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but just to be clear, I'm sorry if I in any way offended you.

    In order to find the right post to comment back on I have had to read back over a whole host of comments from people about what you said. You've really upset a lot of people. Honestly, I'm sure not intentionally, but your comments were quite insulting. I'm especially thinking of comments about "sad" lives. I'm also upset that you said "even Robeerto" made an insightful comment. Why on earth wouldn't he? He's an intelligent man, and posts here from Cuba with thoughts and good wishes - why should "even" he say something of interest? However, its easy to get the tone of one's typing right, and I'm sure you were not meant to be deliberately belittling to either him personally, Fifi or anyone else.

    So where does this leave the conversation? Well, this is a room, a place where people have come into and started chatting and discussing and laughing. Some have poked their heads round the corer, not liked the place and left. Some even said so. Others have hung around and still others have piped in.

    I have learnt things in this place, have been inspired to rethink attitudes I have, and had a laugh at some things. I have also been unintentionally rude to a couple of people and hope that my apologies were taken in good heart. Hopefully I've made some others smile (or grimace).

    And for the curious, I use the name "Whisht" as I tend to find it not taken when thinking of a Username at short notice. I admit to hiding behind it as it is a small world and until recently a lot of personal details of mine were easily found online!! Perhaps they still are! My real name is entirely unimportant though - who cares if its Brian Brenda, Joe or Jo? However, the PM team know it and I can be made accountable if I were to say or do anything malicious - presumably "accountability" is a key reason for giving one's identity.

    And that's more than enough. Far too much to read, and instead of debate i fear I've been soliloquising - a terrible blog habit!
    Hope things work out for you Patricia wherever you find yourself and I'm sure that you will clear up any misunderstanding around any of your comments which people have been so offended by.
    Thanks.

    n'night all

  150. At 12:24 AM on 25 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Agreed.

  151. At 12:34 AM on 25 Oct 2006, Rufus A B wrote:

    Hey Mr Ed,

    Nice collection of bugs you have and, like you, they are multi- talented.
    Ta.

  152. At 12:48 AM on 25 Oct 2006, Mr. I. Kew wrote:

    whisht, you can do brief
    And expansive, flowing, too.
    Both with equal style.

  153. At 09:37 AM on 25 Oct 2006, ian wrote:

    Let's all go to the Rose Revived tomorrow night!

    "I'm Fearless Fred"
    "No, I'm Fearless Fred"
    "We're all Fearless Fred"

  154. At 10:54 AM on 25 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Ah, but I'll be there under my "real" name, so your cunning plan will fail, ian! :)

  155. At 10:55 AM on 25 Oct 2006, patricia Elliot wrote:

    From the amount of comments that have been generated it is clear that my initial remarks were both 'out of place', and after reading the above composition from the person referred to as 'Whisht', that I was poking my nose in where it wasn't wanted.

    I seem to have been accused of a multitude of sins, although as has been pointed out, it was not my intention to be personally insulting. For those of you who took it personally I apologise.

    I will heed the advice from the Gentleman called Fred, for want of being accused of 'attention seeking', and let you all discuss what you believe is important. I would also like to wish him all the best with his rendevouz and leave a little advice for him. It is not what you look like from the outside Fred, but from within that counts.

    Finally I have much respect for Mr Mair, always such a bonny lad and still missed from Radio Scotland, along with Ken Bruce - although I'm old enough to be their Grandmorther.

  156. At 01:26 PM on 25 Oct 2006, andycroak wrote:

    Pat :

    It is not what you look like from the outside Fred, but from within that counts.

    Plainly not true in my case - see this thread ...

  157. At 01:59 PM on 25 Oct 2006, silver-fox wrote:

    I think she is Ed's granny?

  158. At 02:16 PM on 25 Oct 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Thanks Whisht (149).

    That needed saying and I hadn't the energy.

    Beautifully put.

  159. At 02:19 PM on 25 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Apology accepted Patricia, thank you.

  160. At 02:27 PM on 25 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Yo, Silver Fox.... You're coming oout of your shell a bit there, be careful now!

    :O)

  161. At 10:47 PM on 25 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Whisht (149),

    You are evidently a truly lovely, thoughtful and constructive person. And generous in your assumption that no offence was intended (I suspect it was in that person's follow-up post, although not so much the original one). I maintain ignoring that kind of abuse is the only way to deal with it (this post is about you), but if I have to challenge bad behaviour - and we all do sometimes - I hope that I do it with as much grace and thoughfulness as you.

    A, x.

  162. At 11:59 PM on 25 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    evenin' all (what was that police expression piece again..?)

    well, firstly, thankyou all very much. I'm not very good when accepting compliments which is a terrible habit, so honestly - thankyou.

    However I obviously wasn't clear enough in my far too long reply to Patricia, as she believes that I didn't want her to join in. Completely wrong - in fact I was thinking today about looking into bars or rooms at parties or huddles of people at new workplaces. It looks so daunting and either they're all laughing at something you don't know or being intelligent about something that you again don't know.

    However it just takes someone to turn round and say "Hi". Doesn't necessarily mean I'll stay (it might still be impenetrable after half an hour!!) but it'll mean I gave it a go.

    again - I'm writing too much!
    I'll be silly somewhere else.... pity i missed all the fun and games with the newsletter!

    n'night (uurrgghh midnight again...)

  163. At 01:17 AM on 26 Oct 2006, patricia Elliot wrote:

    Well I must say my dears I may have been too eager to judge you all. In fact she says I'm an old crabbit.

    My Sister Anne is staying with me, from Annan, always a joke in the family and we have just had a tipple to many after enjoying a wonderful night out at a lovely restaurant.

    Anne has chastised me for my thrawn views an I have to say she may have a point.

    Well Andrew, 'andycroak' We have had such a laugh looking at your beautiful photograph, she is a fine lass and Anne says could we have a close up of you -Oh dear - we must away before we both get carried away. Well we need something to cheer us up with all this dreich weather we've been having.

    I'm learning so much about the computer with Anne, although what I'll remember in the morning won't be worth remebering. Ohhh dear

    Dear Whisht, thank you for the advice and you will be my first foot in the New Year.

    And here's me saying I was off earlier.

    Oh Anne says I'll let anne take over

    No it's just a wee joke now did you hear about the Scotsman who walked into the bakery and then said, "Is that a macaroon in the window or a meringue?" Ach always mede me laugh that one. Patricia never gets it either

    Night lovely ones and lovely Andrew with that gorgeous chest of his xxx

  164. At 04:10 PM on 26 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Wow, that took some ploughing through. While my blood pressure rose alarmingly at my inability to burst in and SHOUT at the nasty things which she said about us, I read on, and on, and found that my attraction to my fellow froggers was totally vindicated by the wise and warm attitude you have all taken. I'm honoured to be with you all in the ether.

    PS Really glad I didn't read this on holiday though....

  165. At 08:00 PM on 26 Oct 2006, Charles Hatton wrote:

    Aperitif (161). Here, Here!!! Whisht is lovely!

  166. At 11:40 PM on 26 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    Aperitif, Charles, everyone - this is doing my ego the world of good, but I don't think I can take all the love I'm feeling in the room!

    . #
    :¬ )
    . #

    I need to go somewhere and be very very silly, but I'm very tired. Maybe I'll go to the beach (maybe I'll go for the weekend though...)

  167. At 11:57 PM on 26 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Patricia/Anne (163),

    "No you're right enough!" (It was a favourite of an old boyfriend of mine - a Scot himself).

    Frogging whilst tipsy's great innit?

  168. At 09:45 AM on 27 Oct 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    I've just had a quick peep here after a bit of an absence (SO much fun on the beach!) and am really pleased to catch up on everything ....

    patriciaE - You do seem to have developed the true spirit of the PM blog, and have apparently discovered that we have such fun here together.

    Lovely to have you with us. xx

  169. At 11:20 AM on 27 Oct 2006, andycroak wrote:

    Old crabbit : welcome back to the frog!

    Thankyou for your kind words about my photograph, and of my SO.

    A close up is on its way to you, once I've got some from the model agency :)

    As a wee Sassenach, Anne, I don't get the joke either. Maybe you (or Perry, who does get it) could provide some phonetics?

    Lovely.

  170. At 11:32 AM on 27 Oct 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    Welcome Patricia,

    Another (old) favourite of mine - an elderly lady was told that her grandaughter had just acquired a spin dryer. In deep shock and puzzlement she asked,
    "Whit for does she need a machine tae dry her spins?"

  171. At 12:35 PM on 27 Oct 2006, RobbieDo wrote:

    andy (169)

    It took me ages to get it.

    You have to say the words in a VERY VERY scottish accent with "a meringue" said as "am I wrong?"

  172. At 11:26 AM on 28 Oct 2006, andycroak wrote:

    Got it, thanks RobbieDo. Duh, I should've worked it out sooner, especially with Perry's 167 as an answer. Still, my few remaining leetle gree sails are probably busy keeping me alive etc.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.