Cienciano wrote: » Hold on here, your previous posts were: And now when they have extra podcasts, one almost an hour and a bonus rugby one for half a hour, you still moan? Suppose I'm a fanboy for pointing that out? At least something to look forward to when the world cup is over:
riemann wrote: » You must have a lot of free time.
Raoul Duke wrote: » Anyone else have today's Brazil game spoiled because of the name of today's podcast? Finished work, after avoiding the sports news all day, opened my podcast player and there it was, an unavoidable spoiler. Ruined the game for me.
Ivefoundgod wrote: » Seriously? Honestly they can't win at the moment with some people. Either the pods aren't frequent or fast enough or now we have you saying they are too quick and not vague enough with their titles. Get a grip, if you're plan is to avoid scores until the evening then going anywhere near a podcast is not an advisable way of doing it. You might as well have logged into LiveScores and complained they spoiled it. You're either avoiding sports media to not ruin the score or you're not. In this case you didn't avoid it and are now blaming them for it.
Raoul Duke wrote: » Maybe you only listen to sports podcasts. I listen to about 3 or 4 a day of different types - movies, current affairs, comedy etc. I opened my podcast player to play a non-sports podcast and there in front of me was what happened in the Brazil game. Most people wouldn't have seen the game live, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there should be some consideration given when putting out your podcast not to spoil the game for their listeners.
Raoul Duke wrote: Anyone else have today's Brazil game spoiled because of the name of today's podcast? Finished work, after avoiding the sports news all day, opened my podcast player and there it was, an unavoidable spoiler. Ruined the game for me.
Arghus wrote: » I've given out in the past about their lack of pods during some days and all that, but, come on, it sounds like you are being nit picky to an extreme there. Ruined the game for you? The title of a podcast? Really? Ah heyor! I don't think spoilers should even come into the conversation about something that just happened in real life - that 99% of their audience will already know about at that stage anyway or, if they don't, will be at least mad eager to find about. Get real. Should newspapers and websites have giant spoiler tags covering the score too? Or any other news that you haven't heard about yet?
Raoul Duke wrote: » Agree to disagree so. My initial post was just a question to see if there were any more people who were annoyed with finding out about the Brazil game this way. Seems there weren't. At least amongst the people who read this thread. I will leave you with this question though, if they had the actual score in the name in the podcast, you'd be ok with that?
dulux99 wrote: » If you want to avoid the results of a big sports event then just turn your phone off. Simple.
Ol' Donie wrote: » Nay, I managed to keep away from the Argentina result the other night, til I saw it in the bleedin chipper on the way home from 5 a side. Chips were nice, though.
dulux99 wrote: Exactly. It's already hard enough to avoid any big result even without being on your smartphone.
Pter wrote: » Yeah yeah enough about that. Tell us more about the chips donie
lawred2 wrote: » Have to say that the foreign commentary does zilch for me..
Say Your Number wrote: » Always good to hear Marcela's take on the Argentinian team.
Arghus wrote: » She's consistently great every time she's on. She has a sort of poetic take on the game, but she manages to pull it off, which is no mean feat. Graham Hunter tries something not altogether dissimilar and sounds like an absolute twat.