Hi Everyone what a great subject this has been,& its still ongoing.Ive never
known such response!I find it funny how people have a certain impression on
someone who they don't know or never met before!I think gardeners world is
good but not a patch as when a Alan T was the front man!There are all of
these theories why they have these less experienced & younger/better looking
presenters,maybe its to try & get a younger audience interested,I am 29 &
like the presenters!And lets face it if the young ones of today don't get
involved were will our gardens end up!
Happy Gardening
keith
"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...
On 3 Sep 2003 09:08:32 -0700, (Mike Lyle)
wrote:

OK, we've done telly, now let's slag off *Gardeners' Question Time*.

Eric Robson's script is so obviously written for him.

I remember an incident when one urgler caused a lot of hilarity!
(Oh s***!) Lets have a bit of fun, though I agree they sometimes do
not answer the question properly.
I went to a live charity GQT once, given by Stephan Buckzacki (or
something like that!) I asked a question about blight on tomatoes. He
gave a very full answer on potato blight, but even questioning him
afterwards did not give me the advice I wanted.................and I'm
still trying to grow tomatoes, in vain!


Pam in Bristol

"keith" wrote in message
...
There are all of
these theories why they have these less experienced & younger/better
looking
presenters,maybe its to try & get a younger audience interested,I am 29 &
like the presenters!And lets face it if the young ones of today don't get
involved were will our gardens end up!

Gardens will end up exactly as they are now.

If your hypothesis is correct , then the BBC should take note of the
following ( based on research!) "Young" people are generally NOT attracted
by gardening. It is not a pursuit one becomes interested in until one is
older and more settled .

Its always been the way.
When you reach about 35 gardening starts to become more interesting ,
together with other more homely pursuits. By the time you retire you are in
passion stage for gardening. Most of those who uphold our local gardening
club in my area are oldsters. Those entering the shows are pensioners.
They too try to attract the young , even down to having a special category
( which folded due to lack of support)


Therefore putting "young" role models on TV is unlikely to have much effect
on the young generation.
However, I would suggest it can and does irritate and alianate people like
me.
I dont want to see the pretty young things ( I can watch that on pop idol!).
I want to see experience.

I dont want trendy. I want good advice.

BY the way, anyone else getting fed up with all gardening programmes being
led by small garden faddy ideas?

When I was very young I had a small garden - and never did anything to it.
As I got older I got a bigger home and a bigger garden. I realised I had to
at least mow the lawn. After a while I dug bits of it up.

In those days all gardening was about large gardens. I coveted one of these
gardens as my passion and age grewg

Now, I have sold up and brought me a BIG garden , but all gardening
programmes are for small gardens!

In article , Mich
writes

When you reach about 35 gardening starts to become more interesting ,
together with other more homely pursuits. By the time you retire you are in
passion stage for gardening. Most of those who uphold our local gardening
club in my area are oldsters.

That applies to most clubs!! The potholing fraternity is getting worried
about the lack of youngsters coming into the sport.

Those entering the shows are pensioners.
They too try to attract the young , even down to having a special category
( which folded due to lack of support)


Therefore putting "young" role models on TV is unlikely to have much effect
on the young generation.
However, I would suggest it can and does irritate and alianate people like
me.

Good point.

I dont want to see the pretty young things ( I can watch that on pop idol!).
I want to see experience.

I dont want trendy. I want good advice.

BY the way, anyone else getting fed up with all gardening programmes being
led by small garden faddy ideas?

Irritated by faddy ideas, and the concept of fashion in gardening - that
you shouldn't be growing grasses because it's 'so last season'.

Not worried about the small garden side - most gardeners are gardening
in small gardens, and we've had so many years where all the books and
information have related to spaces far out of our reach.

When I was very young I had a small garden - and never did anything to it.
As I got older I got a bigger home and a bigger garden. I realised I had to
at least mow the lawn. After a while I dug bits of it up.

In those days all gardening was about large gardens. I coveted one of these
gardens as my passion and age grewg

Now, I have sold up and brought me a BIG garden , but all gardening
programmes are for small gardens!

You're very lucky! Not all of us will have that opportunity. I'm not
implying you haven't worked damned hard for it, but even so, many of us
work very hard without ever being able to move into a big garden.



--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Mich" wrote in message ...
"keith" wrote in message
...
There are all of
these theories why they have these less experienced & younger/better
looking
presenters,maybe its to try & get a younger audience interested,I am 29 &
like the presenters!And lets face it if the young ones of today don't get
involved were will our gardens end up!

Gardens will end up exactly as they are now.

If your hypothesis is correct , then the BBC should take note of the
following ( based on research!) "Young" people are generally NOT attracted
by gardening. It is not a pursuit one becomes interested in until one is
older and more settled .
[...]

After all, how many 20-to-25-year-olds *have* a house with a garden?

Therefore putting "young" role models on TV is unlikely to have much effect
on the young generation.
However, I would suggest it can and does irritate and alianate people like
me.
I dont want to see the pretty young things ( I can watch that on pop idol!).
I want to see experience.

I dont want trendy. I want good advice.

What he said! Right on, brother!

[...]
In those days all gardening was about large gardens. I coveted one of these
gardens as my passion and age grewg
[...]

I used to have one of the sillier RHS publications, a booklet called
*The Small Garden*: it defined a "small garden" as, IIRC, about half
an acre!

I find the RHS, international authority though it may be, has a slight
weak spot when it comes to books: the stuff in there is usually good,
but they don't seem to be very rational about indexing and other
reader-friendly things, and they have a tendency to leave things out.
Never believe it if the RHS uses the word "encyclopedia", for example.

Mike.

"K" wrote
"JennyC" wrote
: "anne" wrote
: keith wrote
: hi everyone there must be something about Alan to get all of
this
: attention,why is everyone going on about ground force he did
other
: programs
:
: I can't say exactly why I don't like him, there's just something
: about him.
:
: Same here.
: He is a good gardener, knows his stuff (especially taking
cuttings!!),
: etc etc etc
: BUT I can't abide him on the box !
: I have a theory that it's because he's so NICE - one can have too
much
: of a good thing !
: Jenny
:
You like 'em mean, moody and magnificent do you Jenny?

Yep :~))


Another one I can't stand is the greasy David Dickenson.

K

"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...
On 3 Sep 2003 09:08:32 -0700, (Mike Lyle)
wrote:

OK, we've done telly, now let's slag off *Gardeners' Question
Time*.

Eric Robson's script is so obviously written for him.

I remember an incident when one urgler caused a lot of hilarity!
(Oh s***!) Lets have a bit of fun, though I agree they sometimes
do
not answer the question properly.

My 15 minutes of fame :~)
http://members.rott.chello.nl/ldejag.../index.GQT.htm

Jenny

"Mich" wrote in message
...

"keith" wrote in message
...
There are all of
these theories why they have these less experienced & younger/better
looking
presenters,maybe its to try & get a younger audience interested,I am 29
&
like the presenters!And lets face it if the young ones of today don't
get
involved were will our gardens end up!

Gardens will end up exactly as they are now.

If your hypothesis is correct , then the BBC should take note of the
following ( based on research!) "Young" people are generally NOT attracted
by gardening. It is not a pursuit one becomes interested in until one is
older and more settled .

Its always been the way.
When you reach about 35 gardening starts to become more interesting ,
together with other more homely pursuits. By the time you retire you are
in
passion stage for gardening. Most of those who uphold our local gardening
club in my area are oldsters. Those entering the shows are pensioners.
They too try to attract the young , even down to having a special
category
( which folded due to lack of support)


Therefore putting "young" role models on TV is unlikely to have much
effect
on the young generation.
However, I would suggest it can and does irritate and alianate people like
me.
I dont want to see the pretty young things ( I can watch that on pop
idol!).
I want to see experience.

I dont want trendy. I want good advice.

BY the way, anyone else getting fed up with all gardening programmes being
led by small garden faddy ideas?

When I was very young I had a small garden - and never did anything to it.
As I got older I got a bigger home and a bigger garden. I realised I had
to
at least mow the lawn. After a while I dug bits of it up.

In those days all gardening was about large gardens. I coveted one of
these
gardens as my passion and age grewg

Now, I have sold up and brought me a BIG garden , but all gardening
programmes are for small gardens!


Well, I agree, to a point. My mother always gardened, as did her mother and
my father and his family. Everyone I know has done gardening to some
extent, whether it be for food or for pleasure or both. I grew up with my
hands in the dirt and even married a landscaper. I love to garden and it's
nice to see someone pleasant to look at on the tv. It doesn't really matter
whether they are or not, but it's nice.

I'm just hitting my thirties - so I haven't gotten old yet ( I dont care
WHAT my 13 year old says!! LOL)

trai

Janet Baraclough wrote in message
...
The message
from "Culturalenigma" contains these words:

it's
nice to see someone pleasant to look at on the tv. It doesn't really
matter
whether they are or not, but it's nice.


I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.

Janet


I totally agree Janet, but I'm as ugly as sin.

Janet Baraclough wrote in message
...
The message
from "Culturalenigma" contains these words:

it's
nice to see someone pleasant to look at on the tv. It doesn't really
matter
whether they are or not, but it's nice.


I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.

Janet


I totally agree Janet, but I'm as ugly as sin.

I wrote:
it's
nice to see someone pleasant to look at on the tv. It doesn't really
matter
whether they are or not, but it's nice.

You wrote
I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.

Janet

And me next:

Socially exclusive of whom? Unattractive people? That seems strange. I
would think that attractive could mean anything. I don't believe that the
entertainment industry will EVER give up on the whole image thing. Radio
DJ's are trying to look better these days. We watch tv to be entertained.
Not to be rude or anything - but you go to the library or school to be
educated. There IS no ulterior motive other than learning with schools and
educational halls. With television, there's only the bottom line: Money.
And the truth is, sex sells. Put someone sexy on, you have instant viewers.
Take for example a show called Cowboy U they just played here in the States.
5 attractive 20 somethings on a working ranch learing to herd cattle. Two
cute ranglers and one who looks stereotypically like our Western Cowboy
complete with curled mustache.

Two girls got naked.

The show was a hit.

5 people wrangling cattle.

Attractiveness sells. So What? IF they honestly know their stuff, should
they be automatically tossed aside BECAUSE they are attractive? That sounds
like it's "exclusive" to me.

Trai

"anne" wrote in message
...

Janet Baraclough wrote in message
...
The message
from "Culturalenigma" contains these words:

it's
nice to see someone pleasant to look at on the tv. It doesn't really
matter
whether they are or not, but it's nice.


I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.

Janet


I totally agree Janet, but I'm as ugly as sin.

As I said earlier, "attractive" is relative. I don't think Jennifer Aniston
is attractive, or Sly Stallone, or even whats-his-face from Mission
Impossible. But look at all the millions of people who idolize them.

Beauty - everyone has is. So, you are not ugly as sin.

trai

In article , anne
writes

Janet Baraclough wrote in message
...
The message
from "Culturalenigma" contains these words:

it's
nice to see someone pleasant to look at on the tv. It doesn't really
matter
whether they are or not, but it's nice.


I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.



I totally agree Janet, but I'm as ugly as sin.

That doesn't devalue your comment ;-)
Except if you made it while on TV, that is!




--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Culturalenigma
writes

Janet B wrote:

I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.

Socially exclusive of whom? Unattractive people?

Older women for a start.
We have progresses. I remember when it was considered that women did not
have sufficient gravitas to read the news. Now the news is read by young
men, older men, and young women.

That seems strange. I
would think that attractive could mean anything. I don't believe that the
entertainment industry will EVER give up on the whole image thing. Radio
DJ's are trying to look better these days. We watch tv to be entertained.

I can remember when we watched TV to be educated. Strangely, that was
how programmes like Horizon started out.

Not to be rude or anything - but you go to the library or school to be
educated. There IS no ulterior motive other than learning with schools and
educational halls. With television, there's only the bottom line: Money.
And the truth is, sex sells. Put someone sexy on, you have instant viewers.
Take for example a show called Cowboy U they just played

here in the States.

Ah. Yes, TV is different in the States.

5 attractive 20 somethings on a working ranch learing to herd cattle. Two
cute ranglers and one who looks stereotypically like our Western Cowboy
complete with curled mustache.

Attractiveness sells. So What? IF they honestly know their stuff, should
they be automatically tossed aside BECAUSE they are attractive? That sounds
like it's "exclusive" to me.

No one is asking for that. I think what Janet is querying is the
stereotype given by our TV programmes that the only people worth
listening to are those who are attractive. I don't know if it is still
true, but about 10 years ago, every US presidential campaign since about
the beginning of the 20th century had been won by the taller candidate.
Do you really think taller people have more of the characteristics
needed to make a good president?
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"martin" wrote
JennyC" wrote:
"Pam Moore" wrote
, (Mike Lyle) wrote:

I remember an incident when one urgler caused a lot of hilarity!
(Oh s***!) Lets have a bit of fun, though I agree they
sometimes
do
not answer the question properly.

My 15 minutes of fame :~)

http://members.rott.chello.nl/ldejag.../index.GQT.htm

"The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to
adjust your browser settings."
Martin

Bl....y server was down - its Ok now :~))
http://members.rott.chello.nl/ldejag.../index.GQT.htm
Jenny

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , Culturalenigma
writes
[...]
Not to be rude or anything - but you go to the library or school to be
educated. There IS no ulterior motive other than learning with schools and
educational halls. With television, there's only the bottom line: Money.

That's why Britain has an independent (-ish) broadcaster paid for by a
trifling public levy. The BBC isn't a money-making organisation, it's
a break-even organisation. And, yes, we *do* expect to be educated by
radio and TV: even commercial TV makes a few token gestures to the
brain cells, especially when their licences are nearly due for renewal
(there's a quality requirement in the British licensing process).

[...]
Attractiveness sells. So What? IF they honestly know their stuff, should
they be automatically tossed aside BECAUSE they are attractive? That sounds
like it's "exclusive" to me.

But young gardeners just *don't* know their stuff, except perhaps in
some narrow specialist field: it takes years to be knowledgeable
enough to give useful advice to average gardeners. Look at the
embarrassingly vulgar un-gardens turned out by Charlie Dimwit and good
ol' brickie Tommy Walsh: they're out of their depth.

[...]I think what Janet is querying is the
stereotype given by our TV programmes that the only people worth
listening to are those who are attractive. I don't know if it is still
true, but about 10 years ago, every US presidential campaign since about
the beginning of the 20th century had been won by the taller candidate.
Do you really think taller people have more of the characteristics
needed to make a good president?

And it's getting that way here, too. When there's a party leadership
contest, the pundits often now mention the candidates' looks -- Robin
Cook looks like a gnome, Haig and Duncan-Smith are bald, etc: I
personally find this deeply insulting (to me).

Mike.