h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I haven't watched the series so can't judge who is right or wrong, but I've heard enough about it that I think it's not the sort of program I'd want to watch.
I'm a bit surprised by MMF's 'outburst' here, but I'm even more surprised that somebody feels so offended that he thinks it fit to become personal. Not something I appreciate in any discussion.

IMHO a dirty old man slavering over a tarty blonde who's only talents during the series have been to hide away, drink, lie in bed and flash her s whenever she's needed to sell anything.

Didn't see any of it but they got a couple of business people in to the Today Program yesterday to talk about it - they basically said all the candidates were a total shower, and both said they wouldn't employ any of them as they weren't the sort of people they wanted in their organisations. This from a mobile phone selling business - brought on to be the face of 'cutthroat' business expect, and a smoothie making business - brought on to be the face of fluffy, smiley community business. Funnily enough, they weren't that different in that both said they were not interested in ruthless business people that would do anything to win.

I'd like to know why my ing licence fee is being ed up the wall so Alan ing Sugar can do a job trawl.

Can't he use Monster like everybody else?

*cough* back to the topic "Did Alan Sugar get it wrong ?"

Yes, I think he did.

Before the recent series was shown, there was a programme about Tim, last years sucessful Apprentice, and how he's doing. I guess we'll have to wait and see if there's a similar programme about Michelle, to find out if Sir Alan, really did get it wrong.

Emmily

"I'd like to know why my bleep ing licence fee is being bleep ed up the wall so Alan bleep ing Sugar can do a job trawl."

You're going to *love* the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical one, then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4873260.stm

**clicks on link**

**sounds of vomiting are heard from afar**









Doesn't that link come under the category of Links to "sites which may offend our users."

That sounds just as horrible as this here:


http://www.rtl.de/musik/superstar3.php

( the English summary of what the first link is about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_sucht_den_SuperStar

To be honest my point is a serious one. Sugar has just had 14 weeks of absolutely priceless advertising for his company that my licence fee has paid for.

Why?

And doubly so for that talentless goon Lloyd-Webber, the only man in history to be uglier than his Spitting Image puppet.

Well, my licence fee pays for sport, that I never watch.

Emmily

Look, it wasn't 'Civilisation' or 'The World at War', but it was fairly entertaining and I don't think it was at all the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Whereas ... *click*

'Graham Norton presents' really has become a mark of assured quality since his arrival at the BBC, hasn't it?

No, your licence fee pays to send cameras to cover sport that you don't watch. The BBC do not sponsor, advertise at or create sporting events.

To be honest I feel just the same way about Strictly Come Dancing.

I don't see why my licence fee has to subsidise talentless no-hopers who weren't good enough to get a job in dancing the hard way like all the others did.

"the only man in history to be uglier than his Spitting Image puppet"

Hmm, how about Ron Hattersley, Leon Brittain and Nigel Lawson then?


(Sorry if any of you are still eating your lunch whilst reading this!)

Well, they didn't exactly set Sugar up in business either - it's 'priceless' advertising depending on the impression the viewer formed of the man and his business methods.

Me, if I knew what it was Amstrad actually did these days, I'd probably be *less* likely to buy now than previously

I quite enjoyed the show, although I only watched a few episodes. It was interesting, and showed things I hadn't seen before. On the other hand, there is certainly an element of freak show in putting together the single mindedly ambitious and encouraging them to tread all over each other.

Now musicals, I don't know whether there's something fundamentally bad about them or if its just that everyone who is in that scene simply prefers drivel. Might it be possible to make a good musical if you kidnapped, say, the current writers or Doctor Who, and forced them to do it?

Thinking about it there was that Buffy episode where they all sang...

Ta-ra!

http://www.amstrad.com/products/integra/index.html

Well, there you go ... the next time I need an Ultimate Face Care System, I shall take my custom elsewhere

On topic answer - I think he went for greater potential at greater risk.

Off topic - What does the BBC get out of it? Hours of free staff management training videos...



*stops*

I'd like to see John Harvey and Alan Sugar go head to head. Or better still, Harvey investigating then telling Sugar how he can improve the company.

Resumes

Just got in from w*rk and caught up with the backlog.

I took exception to MMF's posts as he'd basically come onto a thread I'd started to insult the intelligence of people discussing a tv programme. If he finds the subject matter tiresome or trivial, why post? Why not move on?

His remarks were crass and condescending and I felt within my rights to refute them.