Top Presenters

[kleinboet]

Rabbit, I do believe you are trying to goad me! Let me make this quite clear - there are umpteen very good presenters on all channels, there were even more but a lot have either retired or left this mortal coil! Now - out of all these excellent presenters (whom people can understand as they speak clearly) we select one who cannot pronounce his rrr's, and you have to listen very carefully to what he says or sometimes you will miss what he is saying. I will not watch him as I watch television for enjoyment, not for concentration!

The other keeps making sexual references, which I don't need.

 

These are MY opinions, if you feel different so be it - but don't try and persuade me to adopt yours by insulting me!

Edited May 3, 2008 by kleinboet

[chesters1]

i feel some gay types on tv deliberately go over the top (down to smuttiness) mainly because without this method they wouldnt be on telly in the first place ,norton is fine but clarey (sp) is detestable .

to balance things i find the half gay older lady on will and grace hilarious whilst the really gay thing downright obnoxious but as you say i cannot understand a word Florentino Fernández says on tv

and Penélope Cruz just grunts and clicks to my ears

Edited May 3, 2008 by chesters1

[Vagabond]

to dislike a man because he ......... has a speech impediment is pathetic.

 

Don't fowget, Wabbit, that not pwonouncing youw aaawws is not necessawily a speech impediment, but is sometimes an affectation leawned at Public School.

 

Impediment gets my sympathy , affectation my scown.

 

I neithah know naw cawe which it is in this pawticulah case, as I don't watch the pwogwamme - I am just wowwied that this computah seems to have caught it.

 

I am in the Isle of Man at the moment and hope to go twout fishing this week, but it looks as if I must leave the wepowt until I get home lest y'all don't know what fish I am witing about.

 

Apologies fow not spelling yow name wight, but each time I type Wabbit it comes out as Wabbit. Should we call you Bunny instead?

Edited May 3, 2008 by Vagabond

[chesters1]

its wossies fathwer

fwuffy is better than bunny surely

Edited May 3, 2008 by chesters1

[Guest Rabbit]

Rabbit, I do believe you are trying to goad me! Let me make this quite clear - there are umpteen very good presenters on all channels, there were even more but a lot have either retired or left this mortal coil! Now - out of all these excellent presenters (whom people can understand as they speak clearly) we select one who cannot pronounce his rrr's, and you have to listen very carefully to what he says or sometimes you will miss what he is saying. I will not watch him as I watch television for enjoyment, not for concentration!

The other keeps making sexual references, which I don't need.

 

These are MY opinions, if you feel different so be it - but don't try and persuade me to adopt yours by insulting me!

 

So your worried about a man's RRR's and you say you do not like reference to err sex

[Alan Stubbs]

So your worried about a man's RRR's and you say you do not like reference to err sex

 

 

My sex education didn't include the 3 R's.

 

I really don't give a damn about someone's sexual preferences, but Graham Norton is about as welcome as a dose of herpes.

 

Lewd without being particularly funny. Sexual orientation hass nothing to do with it.

[Guest Rabbit]

Quote Alan Stubbs

Lewd without being particularly funny. Sexual orientation hass nothing to do with it.

 

Lewd...Belonging to the lower classes, or the rabble, idle and lawless, bad vicious - Chaucer

 

Nope can't see that fits Graham Norton

[BoozleBear]

Reading Barry Kneller's posting, I suppose this is more rubbish!

I find it difficult to understand why the top two television presenters are one who can't pronounce his rr's and one who makes his living being camp!!

To me that says it all!

 

Yeah, how dare they - I say we shoot them.

[Alan Stubbs]

Quote Alan Stubbs

Lewd without being particularly funny. Sexual orientation hass nothing to do with it.

Lewd...Belonging to the lower classes, or the rabble, idle and lawless, bad vicious - Chaucer

 

Nope can't see that fits Graham Norton

 

 

There's more than one defintion - this from Websters:

1obsolete : evil, wicked

2 a: sexually unchaste or licentious b: obscene, vulgar

— lewd·ly adverb

— lewd·ness noun

 

 

Obviously a little too subtle for you to understand what I was getting at.

Seems to fit Graham Norton pretty well.

[chesters1]

could be a contender for a "catagory"