"BridgeP" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Mike Lyle) writes:


Most 'gardening' progs are actually 'design' progs.

Very true.


IMO the only real gardening prog is GW, and even that
can stray from the straight and narrow at times.

Like on Friday - watching Rachael De Thame going around gardens and picking
up ideas was like watching paint dry.

I fell asleep less than half way through. When I woke up and realised how
boring it was I turned it off and went to bed.

Peter Bridge


AT and all the others should take solace in the saying that goes
something
like
'disgree, criticise, etc but what you do, don't ignore me!'. Or
perhaps
'all
publicity is good publicity'.

Well, yes. And I doubt very much if AT gives a flying one. But in this
thread I haven't noticed many messages which didn't give reasons for
what the posters thought. And in fairness, the discussion has *not*
been irrelevant to gardening: are we content to have the public
informed about gardening by people whose prime qualification may not
be their gardening experience?

Sorry, but where does that come from. I don't know in detail what the
qualifications of the curent crop of presenteres but I think they have
rather
more than most of us. This thread started of about AT. He is very
experienced
I think.

Do we want programmes that tell us
something we didn't know already? I think that's perfectly relevant.

The national media, they will always be telling somebodies granny how to
suck
eggs. You only need to read any gardening magazine. Every year there are
the
same topics, often for the beginner of which there will hopefully be many.


You also seem a bit unfair in suggesting that most urg discussions
aren't about gardening: I reckon people here stick to the point pretty
well.

I didn't suggest that, only that the the OT topics are often the most
popular.

Mike.