´óÏó´«Ã½

By the way did The Archers

Comments

1. At 10:29 AM on 08 Nov 2006, Big Sister wrote:

   Boy, are you on form today Eddie!

   Give Richard our thanks in advance.

   And - yes! - your guide was helpful ('cept I already know the plots, etc., saddo that I am)

2. At 10:31 AM on 08 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

   Ooooh! sb1.

   Sorry, Eddie, already a listener, and I only caught the tail end of the interview. The interview complained and I let go.

3. At 10:37 AM on 08 Nov 2006, Fenny wrote:

   I doin't know about grabbing any new listeners, but it has certainly lost plenty over the last few weeks. Even once the whole Ruth/Sam/David/Sophie fiasco is over, it's bl**dy Lynda Snell's pantomime season. I shall probably give it all a miss until after Christmas and then see if things have improved any.

4. At 11:07 AM on 08 Nov 2006, wrote:

   Well, I kept my 100% record regarding the Archers, and had a CD on in the car instead :p

5. At 11:29 AM on 08 Nov 2006, wrote:

   Sorry Eddie, not even close.

   Wild stallions chained to my...

   Let's say it would take a lot to induce me to listen.

   Si.

6. At 11:38 AM on 08 Nov 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   Grabbing listeners? I wouldn’t want to be manhandled in such a brutal way -- no, it didn’t work on me.

7. At 11:38 AM on 08 Nov 2006, valery pedant wrote:

   I had PM on in the car, but missed The Archers' bit, TD was in full post-school flow. (I know, I know, there's always Listen Again...).

   I did listen to The Episode and it was exactly what I expected (phew), so where did the reverby trailer that's been haunting the airwaves for the last few days fit in? Still to come? Not really a trailer? We must be told.

8. At 11:43 AM on 08 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

   Standing by...
   All warning lights on, (I do hope you are aware exactly how much energy this is wasting?)

9. At 12:09 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

   Still standing by...

   
   Why?......

   I don't have to listen to those frightful Archers again do I? ooooooooooohhhh nooooo Eddie

10. At 12:10 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Belinda wrote:

    My daily experience of the Archers is: "Oh, it's the Archers' music, it must be 7" background voices, background voices, "Oh, it's the Archers' music, it must be 7.15".

    I could be classified as a 'listener' as I have the radio on, but I don't actually listen to it. Is there a special word for that? (and please be nice).

11. At 12:19 PM on 08 Nov 2006, wrote:

    (OT) Totally off topic but I thought I'd bring to everyones attention this marvellous website that has really reduced my telephone bill

    As featured on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show.

    When you are given an 0870 and even some of those even more expensive 07 personal numbers to dial, there is nearly always an 01 or 02 equivelant, which these days is often free or part of an inclusive package.

    Okay, it does mean that the company you are ringing are loosing revenue but are we bothered ?

    Try it out and thank me when it's my birthday :

    
    

12. At 12:39 PM on 08 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    I have to say, Belinda (9), that that pretty much sums up much of my day when the radio is on - but with less "specificity" w.r.t. the time. Truly it is just a case of "la la la la - oo, that's interesting - la la - oo, the news - la la la - Archers theme tu.. - la la ..." and so on. I realise that this does not do a lot for the public image of either my attention span or intellect.

13. At 01:13 PM on 08 Nov 2006, anne wrote:

    well now those of you who did listen - did you notice that the background traffic noise could only be heard while Ruth was on her mobile, the rest of the time, when she was still so-say stuck in traffic the whole thing went totally quiet and all you could hear was her breathing, moaning and generally being Ruth.

    and on a slightly different topic, have we always had this extensive coverage of American mid-term elections? I don't remember it before, and NOTE TO PMs EDITOR, I am monkey sick of it by now, could we please move on to some other more interesting topics for tonight please.

14. At 01:14 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Ruth wrote:

    As a long-time Archers listener, I have two comments. Firstly, the piece on your programme was the worst, most boring explanation of The Archers that I've ever heard. Even I was tempted to give it a miss after listening to that. And secondly, thank Heaven they've got the 15,000th episode out of the way, and I never need to listen to that trailer ever again!

15. At 01:24 PM on 08 Nov 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    So Radio 4 is a sort of audible clock for you too John H? I find it perfectly possible to drift through the day without a watch, by re-focusing my attention on to what type of programme is mumbling on in the background. It doesn't usually take too long to pinpoint it to the half-hour, or even the quarter, circumstances depending.
    Ah, it must be nearly 1.30, time to walk the dog - and the sun's shining too!

16. At 01:41 PM on 08 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    I seem to have an incredible ability not to pick up patterns in programmes - so although I often listen to R4 all day, every day, I have no idea what is on or when. When somebody says something like, "It's one o'clock...", I think I sort of subliminally take it on board. I'm very big on programmes where there's an indication of when it's on in the title ("The World at One", "PM") - but then if I were responsible for the names of birds, they'd be things like "medium black and white spotted one with a bit of red", "little brown one", etc.

17. At 01:44 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Jon G wrote:

    I was very grateful to PM for reminding me not to listen to the Archers. Without that piece, I might have heard the show by accident. But you promoted me to set my clock for 7pm, so that I could change the channel before "dum de-dum-de-dum-de-dummm" had a chance to break my four-year-old daughter's stream of consciousness.

    Thank you.

18. At 01:55 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Oh, but, John H, you don't la la during PM, do you?

    (shocked)

19. At 02:09 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Jon G wrote:

    Oh nuts, meant "prompted", not "promoted". And I got caught by surprise by the 2pm Archer repeat, too. It's been that kind of a day so far. Still, Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part Four: The US Mid-Terms. D'you know, I feel happier already. I think I will have that cuppa after all...

20. At 02:32 PM on 08 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Anne(13) The traffic noise was there (but they faded it down so the call was clearer! and fased up Ruth's last breath (HHAAA)

    Ruth (14) Can you give us any sneak previews of the script or are you tied to secrecy ??

21. At 02:38 PM on 08 Nov 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Did you notice the very loud I'm-putting-on-my-handbrake noise too, whenever Ruth was using her mobile?

22. At 03:06 PM on 08 Nov 2006, John H. wrote:

    I did ask somebody to explain to me what "PM" was the other day, but nobody did.

    I did hear this programme the other day though, where this rather dry presenter followed up a plea to ban bonfires on bonfire night with a comment that went something like "if we ban bonfires, what next? Shouldn't we just bury ourselves up to our necks in concrete and let birds peck out our eyes?" (I'm sure it wasn't actually that, but it was similar.) I almost wet myself - fortunately, I was off for a swim at the time so an opportunity quickly presented itself.

23. At 03:06 PM on 08 Nov 2006, General Joe wrote:

    After all the hipe, the script writers bottled the episode! What will we find out tonight - Sam has OD'd on champagne, chocs and did something weird with the roses, Ruth is still stuck in traffic and David managed to cook something that was edible. We are in for a cracking 15001st.

24. At 03:49 PM on 08 Nov 2006, anne wrote:

    I'm rather hoping, since Sam is obviosuly serious stalker material, that he's going to come back to Brookfield, shoot David - which is only justice since David once shot a badger - hack his head off with one of Bert's old scythes, and then take it and fling it at Ruth's feet saying 'Look what I've done for you, now you have to come away with me'.

    With any luck she will then say no, so he will shoot her and then himself, thereby bringing the whole stupid storyline to a suitable climax.

    If anyone wants to give me a job as a scriptwriter - bring it on, I AM hard enough.

25. At 03:52 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Peter Wharton wrote:

    If Ruth had jumped (sic) ship there would have been questions in the House (of Commons) as to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and family values.

26. At 05:03 PM on 08 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    John H (22) - LOL! Nutter!

27. At 08:40 PM on 08 Nov 2006, wrote:

    John (22) thanks for telling me the end of the "bury ourselves in concrete" statement - I'd missed it with the kitchen noise going on at the time. Thought it was probably funny, but not expecting quite that weird!
    Archers have gained no extra listeners in this house 15, 000 episodes or not.
    Unrelated topic, but this has really got my blood up today. Went for a visit to our local library tonight (after absence of a few weeks), to be greeted by strong smell of paint, complete redecoration, removal of a large part of the furniture & fittings, &, most scarily HARDLY ANY BOOKS!
    We had a dear little suburban local library, (a former conservative club) with absolute treasures of librarians who are incredibly helpful & friendly. On speaking to one (when I got my jaw back off the floor) she told me they have been "madeover" for greater accessibility. They have a few clients who come in electric wheelchairs who were finding it hard to get between the aisles. Well, there is now no problem holding wheelchair races through the room, so much space is there. Problem is, there's not much to go there for now. Even the potted plants have gone. All terribly minimalist. Light, open, spacious. Ok if you don't actually want to READ anything. You can use a computer though. Or borrow a video.
    I feel myself turning into grumpy old woman. Even more than usual. Better stop.