I sat down to watch Gordon Ramsey on Channel 4 only to have it ruined by the 
very poor camera work.  Whoever is operating the cameras are moving them 
quickly left and right, then up and down, then zooming in and out, giving 
out of focus shots and generally making a complete mess of it.  God knows 
how anyone would watch this on an LCD TV, it would be a blurred image.
The camera never seems to stay on one shot for more than 2 seconds.  What is 
it with the constant shaking, moving and zooming Is this meant to be trendy 
or something.  I'm giving it until 9-15pm and switching it off.
Another good programme ruined by idiots operating the cameras.
They can't even use them with autofocus!

john wrote:
> I sat down to watch Gordon Ramsey on Channel 4 only to have it ruined by the 
> very poor camera work.  Whoever is operating the cameras are moving them 
> quickly left and right, then up and down, then zooming in and out, giving 
> out of focus shots and generally making a complete mess of it.  God knows 
> how anyone would watch this on an LCD TV, it would be a blurred image.
> The camera never seems to stay on one shot for more than 2 seconds.  What is 
> it with the constant shaking, moving and zooming Is this meant to be trendy 
> or something.  I'm giving it until 9-15pm and switching it off.
> Another good programme ruined by idiots operating the cameras.
> They can't even use them with autofocus! 
>
>
>   
Agreed... VERY annoying and painful to watch. Like a home video made by 
a small child.

"john" <john,nolan@vrs21.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:47911543_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>I sat down to watch Gordon Ramsey on Channel 4 only to have it ruined by 
>the very poor camera work.  Whoever is operating the cameras are moving 
>them quickly left and right, then up and down, then zooming in and out, 
>giving out of focus shots and generally making a complete mess of it.  God 
>knows how anyone would watch this on an LCD TV, it would be a blurred 
>image.
> The camera never seems to stay on one shot for more than 2 seconds.  What 
> is it with the constant shaking, moving and zooming Is this meant to be 
> trendy or something.  I'm giving it until 9-15pm and switching it off.
> Another good programme ruined by idiots operating the cameras.
> They can't even use them with autofocus!


Do studio cameras even have autofocus? I would consider that most
undesirable.

-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

john wrote:
> I sat down to watch Gordon Ramsey on Channel 4 only to have it ruined by the 
> very poor camera work.  Whoever is operating the cameras are moving them 
> quickly left and right, then up and down, then zooming in and out, giving 
> out of focus shots and generally making a complete mess of it.  God knows 
> how anyone would watch this on an LCD TV, it would be a blurred image.
> The camera never seems to stay on one shot for more than 2 seconds.  What is 
> it with the constant shaking, moving and zooming Is this meant to be trendy 
> or something.  I'm giving it until 9-15pm and switching it off.
> Another good programme ruined by idiots operating the cameras.
> They can't even use them with autofocus! 
> 
> 
It's trendy and arty.  ISTR it was the Bourne Supremacy that was filmed 
like that;  it makes me feel seasick.  Which is an achievement when my 
hobby is racing sailing dinghies!

Andy

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:08:12 -0000, "john" <john,nolan@vrs21.co.uk>
wrote:

>I sat down to watch Gordon Ramsey on Channel 4 only to have it ruined by the 
>very poor camera work.  Whoever is operating the cameras are 

doing what the programme director is telling them to do, if they have
any aspirations at all to continue in the industry as camera
operators.

HTH, HAND.

Brian
Remove 2001. for email address.

"john" <john> wrote:

> 'm giving it until 9-15pm and switching it off.

15 minutes to switch-off? You're a mere beginner. I have trained myself
spot naff directing within 15 seconds, and I have it down to 15 frames
on some channels.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article , Andy Champ 
 writes

>It's trendy and arty.  ISTR it was the Bourne Supremacy that was filmed 
>like that;  it makes me feel seasick.  Which is an achievement when my 
>hobby is racing sailing dinghies!

At least two Bournes have been filmed that way (can't remember the 
first), but the latest is by far the worst. Given that otherwise the 
films are pretty good, I think they'll go down historically in the "what 
a shame!" category.

The kids were running the last one on DVD last week, and I caught the 
denouement scene again (saw it in the cinema). Awful: standoff with guns 
plus wobbly OTS-2-shots.

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

It's toy cameras that are the problem. Try moving an EMI 2001 to create the 
rubbish pictures  that are now universal.

Stuart
Grumpy Old Engineer

"Alan Pemberton" <Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1iayn4g.un9qjmif5pjkN%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid...
> "john" <john> wrote:
>
>> 'm giving it until 9-15pm and switching it off.
>
> 15 minutes to switch-off? You're a mere beginner. I have trained myself
> spot naff directing within 15 seconds, and I have it down to 15 frames
> on some channels.
>
> -- 
> Alan Pemberton
> Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
> To e-mail me directly, please visit
> <http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article ,
   Stuart Allison <superallisonsATyahooDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:
> It's toy cameras that are the problem. Try moving an EMI 2001 to create
> the rubbish pictures  that are now universal.

I've seen a 2001 hand held on Kenny Everett. ;-)

-- 
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Jan 23, 10:58 am, "Dave Plowman (News)" 
wrote:
> In article ,
>    Stuart Allison <superallisonsATyahooDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:
>
> > It's toy cameras that are the problem. Try moving an EMI 2001 to create
> > the rubbish pictures  that are now universal.
>
> I've seen a 2001 hand held on Kenny Everett. ;-)

I thought Thames used IVC-7000 cameras for 'handhelds' during that
era ?

In fact there's one for sale on ebay !

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/IVC-7000P-COLOR-TELEVISION-CAMERA-PROFESSIONAL-
STUDIO_W0QQitemZ220193156882QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3319QQcmdZViewItem>

	( Item number: 220193156882	)

In article
,
   Mark Carver  wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:58 am, "Dave Plowman (News)" 
> wrote:
> > In article ,
> >    Stuart Allison <superallisonsATyahooDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:
> >
> > > It's toy cameras that are the problem. Try moving an EMI 2001 to
> > > create the rubbish pictures  that are now universal.
> >
> > I've seen a 2001 hand held on Kenny Everett. ;-)

> I thought Thames used IVC-7000 cameras for 'handhelds' during that era ?

Yes - one would be sent across from OBs to Teddington. Usually, the broken
one. Hence the hand held 2001.

> In fact there's one for sale on ebay !

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/IVC-7000P-COLOR-TELEVISION-CAMERA-PROFESSIONAL-STUDIO_W0QQitemZ220193156882QQihZ012QQcategoryZ3319QQcmdZViewItem>

I see no one has been stupid enough to bid for it. You can get a better
doorstop for less.

-- 
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>>> It's toy cameras that are the problem. Try moving an EMI 2001 to
>>>> create the rubbish pictures  that are now universal.
>>> I've seen a 2001 hand held on Kenny Everett. ;-)
> 
>> I thought Thames used IVC-7000 cameras for 'handhelds' during that era ?
> 
> Yes - one would be sent across from OBs to Teddington. Usually, the broken
> one. Hence the hand held 2001.

Ah, yes. My first proper job was at IVC's UK base in Reading, a long time ago. 
There was an engineer there whose full time job was fixing IVC-7000 cameras.

ISTR UK users were Thames, Southern, Anglia, and Molinare ? I think Southern 
used one of theirs permanently in their continuity studio.

Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ? Googling 
only brings up the studio version.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message , Mark Carver 
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ? 
>Googling only brings up the studio version.

There isn't one - it's a 2001 with a man on each corner :)
-- 
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-charged
Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything ever again.

Tony Quinn wrote:
> In message , Mark Carver 
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>
>> Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ? 
>> Googling only brings up the studio version.
> 
> There isn't one - it's a 2001 with a man on each corner :)

Doh !  8-)

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article , Mark Carver 
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
>Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ? 
>Googling only brings up the studio version.

Rumoured to be where Gerald Wiley got the idea for the famous "four 
handles" sketch from...

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

In article ,
   Tony Quinn  wrote:
> >Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ? 
> >Googling only brings up the studio version.

> There isn't one - it's a 2001 with a man on each corner :)

*And* the cameraman to focus it etc. The origins of Maggie's over crewing
in ITV. ;-)

-- 
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message 
news:v$xF0dF$U6lHFwpR@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
> In article , Mark Carver 
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
>>Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ? 
>>Googling only brings up the studio version.
>
> Rumoured to be where Gerald Wiley got the idea for the famous "four 
> handles" sketch from...

You mean 'four candles'.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright 
 writes
>
>"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
>news:v$xF0dF$U6lHFwpR@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>> In article , Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
>>>Never seen a 2001 portable, any pictures out there on the interweb ?
>>>Googling only brings up the studio version.
>>
>> Rumoured to be where Gerald Wiley got the idea for the famous "four
>> handles" sketch from...
>
>You mean 'four candles'.

No I never...

Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?




-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
> 
> No I never...
> 
> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
A public memorial service ... the choir processed in behind four 
candles.  [Wikipedia].

Some people we miss more than others.

Andy

In article ,
	Andy Champ wrote:
> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>> 
>> No I never...
>> 
>> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> A public memorial service ... the choir processed in behind four 
> candles.  [Wikipedia].

> Some people we miss more than others.

Some, we just don't seem to get a good enough aim at.

-- 
Paul Martin

In article , Andy Champ 
 writes
>SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>>  No I never...
>>  Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>>
>A public memorial service ... the choir processed in behind four 
>candles.  [Wikipedia].
>
>Some people we miss more than others.

Yes indeedy. A great man.

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message 
news:AgO+DeINrGmHFwUN@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>>You mean 'four candles'.
>
> No I never...
>
> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Look, when it comes to the ignorant and vulgar speech of the working classes 
you'd best not argue wiv me.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright 
 writes
>
>"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
>news:AgO+DeINrGmHFwUN@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>>>You mean 'four candles'.
>>
>> No I never...
>>
>> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>
>Look, when it comes to the ignorant and vulgar speech of the working classes
>you'd best not argue wiv me.

Sorry Guv.

IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many 
wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.


Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message 
news:AoC+BxZ8wamHFw04@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
> In article , Bill Wright 
>  writes
> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many 
> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.

I just played it to someone who had said "I hated the Two Ronnies"" and she 
fell about.

Bill

In article <AoC+BxZ8wamHFw04@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk>,
	SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
> In article , Bill Wright 
>  writes
>>
>>"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
>>news:AgO+DeINrGmHFwUN@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>>>>You mean 'four candles'.
>>>
>>> No I never...
>>>
>>> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>>
>>Look, when it comes to the ignorant and vulgar speech of the working classes
>>you'd best not argue wiv me.

> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many 
> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.

Except that there are no close ups of RB's face in that sketch. Plenty
of RC's face, but RB is almost always only seen in the wide shot.

-- 
Paul Martin

"Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
news:slrnfpmtgi.c9u.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
> In article <AoC+BxZ8wamHFw04@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk>,
> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>> In article , Bill Wright
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
>>>news:AgO+DeINrGmHFwUN@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>You mean 'four candles'.
>>>>
>>>> No I never...
>>>>
>>>> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>>>
>>>Look, when it comes to the ignorant and vulgar speech of the working 
>>>classes
>>>you'd best not argue wiv me.
>
>> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many
>> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
>
> Except that there are no close ups of RB's face in that sketch. Plenty
> of RC's face, but RB is almost always only seen in the wide shot.

Without actually bothering to play it, my recollection includes RB 
displaying a variety of facial expressions. So, whatever the type of shot, 
that's what actually came across to me.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright 
 writes
>
>"Paul Martin"  wrote in message
>news:slrnfpmtgi.c9u.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
>> In article <AoC+BxZ8wamHFw04@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk>,
>> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>>> In article , Bill Wright
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
>>>>news:AgO+DeINrGmHFwUN@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>You mean 'four candles'.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I never...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
>>>>
>>>>Look, when it comes to the ignorant and vulgar speech of the working
>>>>classes
>>>>you'd best not argue wiv me.
>>
>>> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many
>>> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
>>
>> Except that there are no close ups of RB's face in that sketch. Plenty
>> of RC's face, but RB is almost always only seen in the wide shot.
>
>Without actually bothering to play it, my recollection includes RB
>displaying a variety of facial expressions. So, whatever the type of shot,
>that's what actually came across to me.

Well I've just watched it on YouTube, and it was as I remembered it - a 
beautifully calculated 'blank' look from RB (who even inspects the fork 
handle closely at one point).


Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:

> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many 
> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.

When it was originally shown, Ceefax subtitled it phonetically
("forkandles" "got any ose?" etc) but in all later repeats I've seen it
has been done in conventional English ("Four candles? Oh, fork
handles!"). I suppose that once the secret is out the element of
surprise and confusion is no longer necessary.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article , pm@zetnet.net says...
> In article <AoC+BxZ8wamHFw04@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk>,
> 	SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
> > In article , Bill Wright 
> >  writes
> >>
> >>"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
> >>news:AgO+DeINrGmHFwUN@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
> >>>>You mean 'four candles'.
> >>>
> >>> No I never...
> >>>
> >>> Oh, Fork Handles! Why didn't you say so in the first place?
> >>
> >>Look, when it comes to the ignorant and vulgar speech of the working classes
> >>you'd best not argue wiv me.
> 
> > IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many 
> > wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
> 
> Except that there are no close ups of RB's face in that sketch. Plenty
> of RC's face, but RB is almost always only seen in the wide shot.
> 
> 

RC nearly loses it at the "saw tips" bit. "What? You want ointment?..."

-- 
Halmyre

I'll just go and get my baton...it's in Chicago.

Alan Pemberton wrote:
> SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
>
>> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many
>> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
>
> When it was originally shown, Ceefax subtitled it phonetically
> ("forkandles" "got any ose?" etc) but in all later repeats I've seen
> it has been done in conventional English ("Four candles? Oh, fork
> handles!"). I suppose that once the secret is out the element of
> surprise and confusion is no longer necessary.

Sad: it should remain ambiguous. (after all, [a] there will always be 
newcomers to it, [b] though the initial Title one may become universally 
known, the rest of the sketch won't as such.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver                  |  Tel. +44 1634 203298

Essex home for sale, £59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

J. P. Gilliver  wrote:

> Alan Pemberton wrote:
> > SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
> >
> >> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many
> >> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
> >
> > When it was originally shown, Ceefax subtitled it phonetically
> > ("forkandles" "got any ose?" etc) but in all later repeats I've seen
> > it has been done in conventional English ("Four candles? Oh, fork
> > handles!"). I suppose that once the secret is out the element of
> > surprise and confusion is no longer necessary.
> 
> Sad: it should remain ambiguous. (after all, [a] there will always be
> newcomers to it, [b] though the initial Title one may become universally
> known, the rest of the sketch won't as such.)

Of course I suppose the main reason for the literal subtitling is that
most of it is now done by machines, which are not known for their sense
of humour (or irony).

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article <1ibhp32.1tjz2nosqduwsN%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>, 
Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid says...
> J. P. Gilliver  wrote:
> 
> > Alan Pemberton wrote:
> > > SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
> > >
> > >> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many
> > >> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
> > >
> > > When it was originally shown, Ceefax subtitled it phonetically
> > > ("forkandles" "got any ose?" etc) but in all later repeats I've seen
> > > it has been done in conventional English ("Four candles? Oh, fork
> > > handles!"). I suppose that once the secret is out the element of
> > > surprise and confusion is no longer necessary.
> > 
> > Sad: it should remain ambiguous. (after all, [a] there will always be
> > newcomers to it, [b] though the initial Title one may become universally
> > known, the rest of the sketch won't as such.)
> 
> Of course I suppose the main reason for the literal subtitling is that
> most of it is now done by machines, which are not known for their sense
> of humour (or irony).
> 
> 

Or accuracy, judging by some of the errors on the BBC News.

-- 
Halmyre

I'll just go and get my baton...it's in Chicago.

Halmyre <nospam@this.address> wrote:

> In article <1ibhp32.1tjz2nosqduwsN%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>,
> Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid says...
> > J. P. Gilliver  wrote:
> > 
> > > Alan Pemberton wrote:
> > > > SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> IMHO, the very best thing about that sketch (and there are so many
> > > >> wonderful things) is the expression on RB's face in the close ups.
> > > >
> > > > When it was originally shown, Ceefax subtitled it phonetically
> > > > ("forkandles" "got any ose?" etc) but in all later repeats I've seen
> > > > it has been done in conventional English ("Four candles? Oh, fork
> > > > handles!"). I suppose that once the secret is out the element of
> > > > surprise and confusion is no longer necessary.
> > > 
> > > Sad: it should remain ambiguous. (after all, [a] there will always be
> > > newcomers to it, [b] though the initial Title one may become universally
> > > known, the rest of the sketch won't as such.)
> > 
> > Of course I suppose the main reason for the literal subtitling is that
> > most of it is now done by machines, which are not known for their sense
> > of humour (or irony).
> > 
> Or accuracy, judging by some of the errors on the BBC News.

It's not just the news, it's every show. Even the pre-edited subtitles
rarely make sense. I have used subtitles whenever they have been
available since 1979 becasue in the past they have always allowed me
instantly to see a word or phrase I have misheard, but nowadays I hear
better than the subtitlers and the errors are just confusing and
distracting.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>