Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

AH royal wedding mega thread (no flaming queens)

Options
1…4344454749

Comments

  • Options
    #1382
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    robinph wrote: »
    Yet you are using these word in your posts. :confused:



    You claim that it was a minority interest, I say that it wasn't.

    Which bit are you not getting. It was very far from being a minority interest and only a very strange understanding of the viewing figure numbers could lead you to claim it was.

    No: in fact, you claimed that I implied that "nobody" was interested when I stated that with only 24.5 million viewers out of 62 million people in the UK it was, patently, a "minority interest". This was stated very clearly. Do you think "minority interest" and "nobody" being interested means the same? You chose to ignore the very basic English in question and make up your own interpretation.

    PS: It evidently was a minority interest judging by the figures from the BBC. You don't accept this: fair enough. Most people, on the other hand, will accept them.


  • Options
    #1383
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Seanchai wrote: »
    No: in fact, you claimed that I implied that "nobody" was interested when I stated that with only 24.5 million viewers out of 62 million people in the UK it was, patently, a "minority interest". This was stated very clearly. Do you think "minority interest" and "nobody" being interested means the same? You chose to ignore the very basic English in question and make up your own interpretation.

    PS: It evidently was a minority interest judging by the figures from the BBC. You don't accept this: fair enough. Most people, on the other hand, will accept them.

    But it's already been posted that lots of people were in work on Friday. What's the problem? Can you not read? Is English your eighth language?


  • Options
    #1384
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Seanchai wrote: »
    No: in fact, you claimed that I implied that "nobody" was interested when I stated that with only 24.5 million viewers out of 62 million people in the UK it was, patently, a "minority interest". This was stated very clearly. Do you think "minority interest" and "nobody" being interested means the same? You chose to ignore the very basic English in question and make up your own interpretation.

    PS: It evidently was a minority interest judging by the figures from the BBC. You don't accept this: fair enough. Most people, on the other hand, will accept them.

    Funnily enough, the BEEB claims that 20m viewers corresponds to a 70% share. I wonder how this can be? Stupid BBC are probably leaving out several million infants.

    By the way, 1 million people were NOT watching the Wedding on the BBC in London on Friday. Can you guess why? A clue is in that BBC article.


  • Options
    #1385
    CL7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 684 ✭✭✭CL7


    Seanchai wrote: »
    PS: It evidently was a minority interest judging by the figures from the BBC. You don't accept this: fair enough. Most people, on the other hand, will accept them.

    No, no they wouldn't. Anyone who had the faintest idea how to interpret tv viewing figures wouldn't either.


  • Options
    #1386
    Dionysus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    SnoogyDoogy wrote: »
    No, no they wouldn't. Anyone who had the faintest idea how to interpret tv viewing figures wouldn't either.

    Please explain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1387
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Nobody who has a life of their own and is achieving something of their own would have time to be obsessed with the lives of "celebrities", people they don't even know. It's a sure sign of loserdom, lack of personal achievement and indeed personal failure when they are living vicariously through people they don't even know and perceive to be above them. The truth hurts.
    Seanchai wrote: »
    Is English your first language, or even your eighth language? Seriously. I stated that 24.5 million people watched it there and you respond with that. :o

    Mod:
    Personal stuff = bans from here on out.


  • Options
    #1388
    mariebeth
    Registered Users Posts: 892 ✭✭✭mariebeth


    It seems obvious to me, that if the level of intelligence that has been attributed to those of us who watched or had an interest in the wedding is actually correct, then the only reason we watched it was because we're obviously too stupid to know that there's more than one channel. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1389
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Seanchai wrote: »
    In the same post you've just contradicted yourself; I mentioned a British and an Irish woman as two people who rejected the pomp and ceremony of royalism. It's unlikely that I was making a nationalist point. I know precisely who Maud was; I've just finished reading her biography which was entitled, mind you, Servant of the Queen (the title being a pun on her opposition to her native country's queen)

    You yourself stated you had no respect for anyone who "is nationalistic". However, you believe me to be contradicting myself? Read back to some of your previous posts.....

    Though, I'm glad to hear you're reading the biography of a famous British person you "don't even know".

    I do hope to see you back on here complaining about the mental age of people who watch the opening ceremony of the London Olympics next year. All that British pomp and ceremony will have you reeling!


  • Options
    #1390
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Seanchai wrote: »
    No: in fact, you claimed that I implied that "nobody" was interested when I stated that with only 24.5 million viewers out of 62 million people in the UK it was, patently, a "minority interest". This was stated very clearly. Do you think "minority interest" and "nobody" being interested means the same? You chose to ignore the very basic English in question and make up your own interpretation.

    PS: It evidently was a minority interest judging by the figures from the BBC. You don't accept this: fair enough. Most people, on the other hand, will accept them.

    No, I don't think most people would interpret those numbers as showing it as being a minority interest by the regular understanding of the word in such contexts. It was easily in the top 10 highest viewing figures for anything ever shown on UK television. How can you possibly be claiming it as a minority interest?

    Yes, 24.5 is less than 50% of the population of the UK so therefore there were more people not watching telly that day. Just using the numbers in such a crude way to claim it as minority interest is daft though.


  • Options
    #1391
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    what ever you think of the UK viewing figures,its seems the royal wedding coverage become one of the top ten most watched events on record,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1392
    Corruptedmorals
    Registered Users Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭Corruptedmorals


    Surely the viewing figures are skewed anyway? Hundreds of people watched it on screens in Hyde Park...and the people lining the route were doing the same, thousands and thousands of them. I doubt they were the only ones watching it publicly. And all the parties and street parties, could have been loads per TV. So the true figure should be a good bit higher, no?


  • Options
    #1393
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Funnily enough, the BEEB claims that 20m viewers corresponds to a 70% share. I wonder how this can be? Stupid BBC are probably leaving out several million infants.

    By the way, 1 million people were NOT watching the Wedding on the BBC in London on Friday. Can you guess why? A clue is in that BBC article.

    yeah add an extra 1.1 million on for watching the event live, plus the extra people who went to get-together's and parties and watched the event on other people's televisions (which isn't factored into the official figures) and the number probably rises by a few million more.

    Whether the viewers like or dislike what they are watching, these sorts of events are so out of the ordinary they will always attract the attentions of the county.


  • Options
    #1394
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,083 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Corruptedmorals wrote: »
    Surely the viewing figures are skewed anyway? Hundreds of people watched it on screens in Hyde Park...and the people lining the route were doing the same, thousands and thousands of them. I doubt they were the only ones watching it publicly. And all the parties and street parties, could have been loads per TV. So the true figure should be a good bit higher, no?

    So obvious, but yet I didn't think of it.

    Regardless, who gives a ****. People wanted to see it, and IMO were not at all let down. It was a fantastic show, event and a great day for William and Kate. It was the real deal being played out on front of the world. I just cannot understand the whingers and monaers regarding this.
    What would theye prefer, Shortland Street and Doctors?:confused:


  • Options
    #1395
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    OK magazine readers unite;)


  • Options
    #1396
    blueser
    Registered Users Posts: 10,694 ✭✭✭✭blueser


    walshb wrote: »
    So obvious, but yet I didn't think of it.

    Regardless, who gives a ****. People wanted to see it, and IMO were not at all let down. It was a fantastic show, event and a great day for William and Kate. It was the real deal being played out on front of the world. I just cannot understand the whingers and monaers regarding this.
    What would theye prefer, Shortland Street and Doctors?:confused:
    Excellent post. It was a fantastic show and, like many have already said on here, there isn't many countries on the planet that can outdo Britain when it comes to the whole ''pomp and grandour'' malarkey. Why some on here have a problem with that I don't know.


  • Options
    #1397
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    Perhaps it's that you all sound so slavish in your admiration for the Windsors, here was me thinking the Irish were begrudgers extraordinaire! Or is that a privilege soley for your own country folk:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1398
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    robinph wrote: »
    No, I don't think most people would interpret those numbers as showing it as being a minority interest by the regular understanding of the word in such contexts. It was easily in the top 10 highest viewing figures for anything ever shown on UK television. How can you possibly be claiming it as a minority interest?

    Yes, 24.5 is less than 50% of the population of the UK so therefore there were more people not watching telly that day. Just using the numbers in such a crude way to claim it as minority interest is daft though.

    24.5% doesn't include the people watching in pubs or in other groups.

    I popped out here in Brighton at 10:30 to nip out to the corner shop. I live near a busy street in the city centre. The streets were empty.

    I had never seen the streets so quite before.


  • Options
    #1399
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,083 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Madam wrote: »
    Perhaps it's that you all sound so slavish in your admiration for the Windsors, here was me thinking the Irish were begrudgers extraordinaire! Or is that a privilege soley for your own country folk:rolleyes:

    Not sure how to interpret that post; wee bit ambiguous. Anyway, me personally, if I see a show or event, and it blows me away, I don't care who it is putting on that show. Sometimes brilliance and creativity and performance out-do any bias, prejudice and animosity.


  • Options
    #1400
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    Are the Irish viewing figures available yet?


  • Options
    #1401
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    24.5% doesn't include the people watching in pubs or in other groups.

    I popped out here in Brighton at 10:30 to nip out to the corner shop. I live near a busy street in the city centre. The streets were empty.

    I had never seen the streets so quite before.

    I went out for a run in the afternoon and it was incredibly quite on the streets in my part of the UK as well. Although the motorways did sound busy enough as my route went alongside a couple of them for a bit, the local roads were empty.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1402
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    Are the Irish viewing figures available yet?

    Not that I've seen. Have just found this which shows figure for some other countries:

    UK - 34 million
    US - 22.7 Million
    India - 42.1 Million
    YouTube - 1.3 Million
    Australia - 4 Million


  • Options
    #1403
    Corruptedmorals
    Registered Users Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭Corruptedmorals


    walshb wrote: »
    So obvious, but yet I didn't think of it.

    Regardless, who gives a ****. People wanted to see it, and IMO were not at all let down. It was a fantastic show, event and a great day for William and Kate. It was the real deal being played out on front of the world. I just cannot understand the whingers and monaers regarding this.
    What would theye prefer, Shortland Street and Doctors?:confused:



    Absolutely, I was glued to it. Not only for the experience of watching such a fantastic ceremony, but because I'm interested in the monarchy's past- moreso than the present and as for Kate- stunning girl with great style, was very interested in the dress and it didn't dissapoint. Not to mention that it was moving as they looked very happy. Great show, and good on RTE for showing it.


  • Options
    #1404
    shadowninty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,654 ✭✭✭shadowninty


    robinph wrote: »
    Have just found this which shows figure for some other countries:

    YouTube - 1.3 Million
    my Atlas must be old


  • Options
    #1405
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    shadowninty wrote: »
    my Atlas must be old

    That will be people who's location they couldn't identify. People watching on iplayer get counted in the UK numbers. YouTube doesn't have a country though.


  • Options
    #1406
    dubtom
    Registered Users Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭dubtom


    WTf,why is thread still running,get over it,it's old news.


  • Options
    #1407
    falan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭falan


    dubtom wrote: »
    WTf,why is thread still running,get over it,it's old news.

    *Bump :D


  • Options
    #1408
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    dubtom wrote: »
    WTf,why is thread still running,get over it,it's old news.

    Because people keep on posting in it is the usual reason.


  • Options
    #1409
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    blueser wrote: »
    Excellent post. It was a fantastic show and, like many have already said on here, there isn't many countries on the planet that can outdo Britain when it comes to the whole ''pomp and grandour'' malarkey. Why some on here have a problem with that I don't know.

    Because it was BRITISH 'pomp and grandour' is the reason from what I can see.

    That some seriously arrogant superiorty complexes.


  • Options
    #1410
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Are you seriously questioning the I.Q of the billion or so people who watched the royal wedding around the world? Or merely the I.Q of the Irish viewers?




    What in hell has watching Will & Kate getting married got to do with feminism? You need to chill out and go back to watching The History Channel and revelling in the glorious old days of republicanism.

    The casual sexism displayed in your post is verging on offensive, by the way. You clearly have no clue about what constitutes feminism.


    Who told you that? The royal ratings fairy?
    Did you count them all or did you feel you couldn't miss out on the hive action and wanted to add to the billion or two just in case you'd miss out on the womanly water cooler gossip.

    Of course, your post is sprinkled with accusatory ism's cos that's what people like you do to salve your own bloody conscience.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1411
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    walshb wrote: »
    I am a man

    I'd argue that straight away.


Advertisement