Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nebogipfel

  1. Unfortunately I can't find it on either site. I frequently listen to Beeb podcasts on my MP3 player which is why it's so frustrating. My attempts to record the sound output of my sound card have resulted in an eerie silence.
  2. I do wish the BBC would make all iplayer radio content downloadable, at least for a limited time. It seems so random. Some things such as Monkey Cage are freely available and others not. I know the play is available on listen again but I want to put it on my Mp3 player and listen to it. Frustrating .......
  3. We all grow old and perhaps slow down a bit Buzz is an elderly man and handled the live TV situation well . I stand by my previous post, we should celebrate him and his peers and appreciate their brave and amazing contribution to space science and exploration. It will not be long now before all that generation of astronauts are gone forever, they were a breed apart and I don't think we will ever see their like again. I would rather listen to Buzz reading his shopping list than most of the talking heads we are subjected to on TV.
  4. FWIW. Spend all the time you can with Buzz and his contemporaries say I. Forget numbingly dull sports people, vacuous pop stars and other so called celebrities, the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts are true heroes and role models and we should cherish and celebrate them while they are still with us. Buzz is 85 this year! Nice to see Lucie and be reminded what a natural and fluid presenter she is ............
  5. Moon It seems pretty clear on dear old Wikipedia .....I refer you to "Name and Etymology" I know as a source it can be a bit variable, but the references look authorative on this one.
  6. http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/229987-were-off-to-the-moon/
  7. I like comment 510 from Jimbob I hope he had his tongue in his cheek at the time.
  8. And very good it was too. Reminded me of Horizon when it used to be a good science programme.
  9. I think NOT doing it is a very good suggestion! Give them all excessive makeup, some spray tan and a few tat's and we'd really be (insert the current street term here) Why not have the viewers vote presenters off the programme too ..........now there is an idea.
  10. Yes I feel the same way, I'm fast approaching a time when I will not bother with it any more. It's so sad, after all these years. I'm certain Patrick would be furious with what has been done to the programme. I've said it before, but after we lost Patrick and his team continued it the programme was fine and didn't need any changes to presenters, content or format. Yes, they brought Lucie in as part of the team but otherwise it was business as usual at Sky at Night and Lucie was a very good choice for the job. She is comfortable in front of the camera, easy to watch and can speak in coherent sentences. Now we have "coming up on the programme", superficial little soundbite features interpersed with plinky music and the dreadful ping pong presenting between Chris and MAP (and I have expressed my opinion of the latter as a presenter, not, I emphasise as a person or as a scientist) It is also a nonsense to say that we wanted the programme to continue and therefore it should now be beyond criticism.
  11. No, they didn't axe it. They are slowly choking it to death instead.
  12. Yes nice to see Lucie. Otherwise it was pretty dire, brief chat, plinky music, another brief chat, more plinky music and so on. Do we really need to be told what's coming up in the programme? Bring Lucie back and The Sky at Night I say........
  13. Agreed, Cosmos is good and NDT is the perfect presenter. I saw.........the moon ..........documentary..... first time around..... and thought....it was dire. You couldn't pay me enough to sit through it again. I commented to my wife that the presenter was awful and I hoped she didn't become a regular on TV and now here we are......!
  14. Yes, the petition was save the S@N not start slowly choking it to death. We are indeed the licence payers, but that doesn't seem to worry the BBC these days.
  15. Yes, and it is precisely that, given that she now seems to get a large proportion of the presenting which will lose the audience and ultimately kill a very special TV programme. S@N didn't need fixing, it was fine under the care of Chris, Lucie and team. I 'd be interested to learn what they (privately) think of the improvements?
  16. Yes it was dreadful, I can't remember the Sky at Night ever sinking to this level. I'm distressed and annoyed to see that Patrick's team, particularly Chris are being side-lined in favour of MAP who just cannot present TV. Did MAP actually audition for the Job? Were they asleep at the time? I say again, I'm sure she's a sweetheart, my sister is too, but I wouldn't want her presenting the S@N! I'd contact Points of View or write to the Radio Times but the BBC never listen or indeed care what audiences think. The good ship S@N is sinking fast
  17. She's nothing like Patrick. She may be clever, she may be enthusiastic, she may be a talented space scientist but in my opinion she is an ineffective TV presenter who doesn't .......appear......... to have.......a clue ......how to talk...... to a TV........ audience. It's painful to watch and detracts from what was an excellent astronomy programme. Yes, it could be argued that she comes across as somewhat excentric and it that way could be vaguely compared to Patrick but he was an engaging talented fascinating teacher/broadcaster who could speak unscripted and with authority and pitched his delivery at exactly the right level much of the time. If they wanted a female co-presenter (and why not) why not continue with Lucie Green or employ Helen Czerski both of seem so better suited to the job. As I have commented previously, there was no reason to radically change the S@N as it had continued after we lost Patrick.
  18. I note on the Radio Times website MAP is "Presenter" and Chris Lintott is now "Contributor" It's all a shame and I'm confident Patrick would not be impressed
  19. I watched..........the sky .........at night.........last night.........and there was...........something.........really..........irritating about it. I wonder if.....you can guess........to what I refer? Aside from that i also hate the ping pong "Blue Peter" presentation. I have loved the programme for years and was perfectly happy with the way it continued after Patrick with his team. I suspect Chris Lintott feels as if he has fallen into some strange parallel universe. If they don't fix it fast and turn it back into a serious astronomy programme then I think, internet or not, we are witnessing a slow death! And that.......my friends .......will be.........a great .........shame.
  20. True enough. I watch quite a bit of good stuff on Youtube but there's something to be said for having a lovely box set of remastered DVD's sitting on your shelf ...and for under a tenner.
  21. Following on from the discussion of the new Cosmos presented by Neil Gegrasse Tyson elswhere in the Astro Lounge ............ I thought I'd just mention that the original Cosmos TV series presented by the great Carl Sagan is currently available from Play.com for £8.22 (posted) and from Amazon UK for £9.50 (posted) I'm not recommending either supplier but merely posting a "heads up" to what looks like a bit of a snip for less than a tenner delivered
  22. What a bizarre, aggressive, pointless response!! You quoted someone lamenting the fact that to see the new programme would cost a £20/month subscription and then posted links to the original series on Youtube! I commented simply to avoid the poster or anyone being mislead by your post...........I sometimes wonder why I bother with web forums at all. The format seems to bring out behaviour in people which I'm sure is not how they would normally behave or interact with others. If you want to recommend the original Cosmos why not do so? Start a new thread and wax lyrical about it. It was after all a groundbreaking series presented by one of the great thinkers and science communicators of our time.
  23. That is the original Cosmos with Carl Sagan, not the new one.
  24. It is an interesting lecture and without doubt the Universe is a very strange place. That of course is where science comes in. As denizens of middle world we can now spend time thinking about things not related to simple survival and where the next meal is coming from. We can strive within the limitation of our senses and intellect to really try to understand and explain reality and the way the universe works. As we do so some of the mysteries will be solved but hopefully never the sense of wonder of it all As the great Carl Sagan said we are "a way for the cosmos to know itself" It's a sobering thought that even if life is common in the universe perhaps self aware intelligent life is rare or we may be the only planet with a sentient life form, truly the only way for the cosmos to know itself
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.