OT: Navigationally Challenged or what?

Following up to Roger said:

A visit to Wikipedia found that the position is where the Magnetic North
Pole was in 1996 and the position is now used as the destination for an
annual race

Its Clarkeson!

I liked the "f*** you" G&T drinking while driving.

He makes a point obliquely though, about how artificial we are having
to make our challenges to make them hard enough.

Its repeated Sunday 8 00 pm when I will see the second half.

Interesting this has come up on every group I read almost.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Roger said:

I was watching (well listening really with my back to the telly most
of the time) that BBC programme in which Clarkson et al allegedly
went to 'The North Pole'. I had my doubts about the project long
before they met up with a crashed C47 supposedly a mere 70 miles from
the pole but when they got to 'The Pole' the gps position was
something of the order of 78N, 114W.

I partially noticed that too, but I wasn't paying much attention at the
time.

Quoted message said:

A visit to Wikipedia found that the position is where the Magnetic
North Pole was in 1996

Well spotted Roger!

Quoted message said:

and the position is now used as the
destination for an annual race but the BBC would have been even more
than usually disingenuous in pretending that the point is still the
Magnetic North Pole, let along the real North Pole.

Yes, it was a bit cheeky of them not to point that out, but then,
considering the target audience, how many of them really would have cared
anyway?

At least it does mean that James May is NOT the first person to go to the
North Pole who really didn't want to be there.

Is it possible to drive to the real north pole?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

The Reid said:

Its Clarkeson!

I liked the "f*** you" G&T drinking while driving.

He makes a point obliquely though, about how artificial we are having
to make our challenges to make them hard enough.

Hard enough? I though he was making it easier!

I agree about the artificial challenge though, and him making a point
obliquely, although I'm not exactly sure what that point was...

I must admit that I was surprised to see them attempting something like this
though. I know they like to have daft challenges, but this seemed to be a
bit out of their league. And they seemed to be trivialising the whole thing!

QUESTIONS

1. Is going to the North Pole really that easy these days? (Yeah I know it
wasn't the real one.)

2. Is going to the fake North Pole that much easier than the real one?

3. Were they really in that much danger? i.e. did they have huge support
teams in case anything went wrong?

4. Have you noticed how the car always wins in their "artifically created"
challenges?

5. What about Richard Hammond? His part of the challenge seemed to be a lot
more challenging, but we didn't see much of him at all.

6. Given that Clarkeson managed to trash the car, how come they won? Did
they switch to using the "spare car"? Do I detect a bit of cheating here?

7. Is Arctic expeditioning really that hard? Maybe it's just like going for
a long walk in Scotland in winter, and all these expeditioneers have been
conning us for years...

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

4. Have you noticed how the car always wins in their "artifically created"
challenges?

its a car programme, Paul :-)
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

The Reid wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Its Clarkeson!

I don't really care how he spells his name, he is still a buffoon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I liked the "f*** you" G&T drinking while driving.

He makes a point obliquely though, about how artificial we are having
to make our challenges to make them hard enough.

Quoted message said:

Hard enough? I though he was making it easier!

Quoted message said:

I agree about the artificial challenge though, and him making a point
obliquely, although I'm not exactly sure what that point was...

Quoted message said:

I must admit that I was surprised to see them attempting something
like this
though. I know they like to have daft challenges, but this seemed to be a
bit out of their league. And they seemed to be trivialising the whole thing!

Quoted message said:

QUESTIONS

Quoted message said:

1. Is going to the North Pole really that easy these days? (Yeah I know it
wasn't the real one.)

Nothing in the high arctic is particularly easy.

Quoted message said:

2. Is going to the fake North Pole that much easier than the real one?

Stroll in the park in comparatively speaking. The real North Pole would
have been about 4 times as far (the real Magnetic pole about twice) and
once they got out from the islands there would have been much more open
water and thin ice to contend with. Looking at the Atlas ISTM that they
could have done at least three quarters of their actual trip on land
and, although it wasn't readily apparent, I think the C47 wreck must
have been on land.

Quoted message said:

3. Were they really in that much danger? i.e. did they have huge support
teams in case anything went wrong?

Probably. They must have had someone out in front (health and safety at
work) that we didn't see testing the ice but had they fallen right
through they would have almost certainly had died.

Quoted message said:

4. Have you noticed how the car always wins in their "artifically created"
challenges?

Point of order. Clarkeson always wins which is a shame really as he is
by far the worst of the presenters.

Quoted message said:

5. What about Richard Hammond? His part of the challenge seemed to be a lot
more challenging, but we didn't see much of him at all.

Suffers by not being Clarkeson who pulls the strings on Top Gear.

Quoted message said:

6. Given that Clarkeson managed to trash the car, how come they won? Did
they switch to using the "spare car"? Do I detect a bit of cheating here?

Just happened to be carrying a spare shock absorber didn't they? But
what is almost beyond comprehension is Clarkson boasting about his 3"
(or some such stupid thickness) sump guard when they had absolutely no
protection further back and an auxiliary fuel tank just waiting to be
trashed.

Quoted message said:

7. Is Arctic expeditioning really that hard? Maybe it's just like going for
a long walk in Scotland in winter, and all these expeditioneers have been
conning us for years...

You think that going on a long walk in the Scottish Highlands in winter
isn't hard? At 4000 feet in Scotland the conditions can be arctic but
you always have the option of coming down or waiting for better weather
before going out.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Paul Saunders said:

7. Is Arctic expeditioning really that hard? Maybe it's just like going for
a long walk in Scotland in winter, and all these expeditioneers have been
conning us for years...

Variably, I would guess, just like going for a long walk in Scotland in
winter. If you're post-holing into a blizzard then walking in Scotland
in winter can be completely exhausting even in the short term, where
good solid nevee and still air makes it easy to walk miles. Similarly,
in the Arctic you can have benign, flat, strong ice or you can have
ridged, melting nightmares leading you into cul-de-sacs of water while
everything drifts the wrong way under you...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to drive to the real north pole?

Probably but it has already been done. Someone (who may have been the
first to genuinely travel there on the surface) did it by skidoo some
years* ago.

Whether it can still be done is another matter as the ice gets thinner
and thinner year by year. Clarkesons 3 ton monstrosity wouldn't have
made it.

*Just checked, t'was 1968.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

He makes a point obliquely though, about how artificial we are having
to make our challenges to make them hard enough.

Hard enough? I though he was making it easier!

that was my point
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Following up to Roger said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Its Clarkeson!

I don't really care how he spells his name

neither do I, that wasn't my point.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

6. Given that Clarkeson managed to trash the car, how come they won? Did
they switch to using the "spare car"? Do I detect a bit of cheating here?

I watched it last night to the end. He smashed the reserve gas tank
and a shock. They fixed them. No spare car I think. They showed the
whole team on several occasions,four or more 4x4s with trailers and
Icelandic off road experts.
I found it very amusing, but I dont get upset by Clarkeson. The more
"right on" people get upset, the funnier I find him. Things like the
G&Ts are clearly designed to [censored] target groups and
consequentially get a laugh at thier expense.

PS to PS Did you send me something? It didnt arrive.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The Reid said:

I found it very amusing, but I dont get upset by Clarkeson. The more
"right on" people get upset, the funnier I find him. Things like the
G&Ts are clearly designed to [censored] target groups and
consequentially get a laugh at thier expense.

Pretty much the size of it. He's very good at what he does and hating
him for it seems to be a bit like hating Christopher Lee for drinking
blood...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

The Reid said:

I watched it last night to the end. He smashed the reserve gas tank
and a shock. They fixed them. No spare car I think. They showed the
whole team on several occasions,four or more 4x4s with trailers and
Icelandic off road experts.

But they used exactly the same type of vehicle to pull him out of a bit
where he got stuck. Surely they could have just swapped vehicles? That's
what I meant by a "spare" car.

Quoted message said:

I found it very amusing, but I dont get upset by Clarkeson. The more
"right on" people get upset, the funnier I find him.

I think he's a pratt, but I know he does it just to [censored] people off, which
is amusing. But he's so arrogant...

Quoted message said:

Things like the
G&Ts are clearly designed to [censored] target groups and
consequentially get a laugh at thier expense.

Exactly, and I do find that amusing. I especially liked the gourmet meal in
the tent!

He likes Genesis though, so he can't be all bad...

Quoted message said:

PS to PS Did you send me something? It didnt arrive.

Sorry, got distracted again. Remind me again in the next week or so if I
keep forgetting.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He makes a point obliquely though, about how artificial we are
having to make our challenges to make them hard enough.

Hard enough? I though he was making it easier!

that was my point

I see.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

4. Have you noticed how the car always wins in their "artifically
created" challenges?

its a car programme, Paul :-)

Oh, I see! Now I get it... :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

But they used exactly the same type of vehicle to pull him out of a bit
where he got stuck. Surely they could have just swapped vehicles? That's
what I meant by a "spare" car.

there was certainly a team, I imagine they wanted to recover them all!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I found it very amusing, but I dont get upset by Clarkeson. The more
"right on" people get upset, the funnier I find him.

I think he's a pratt, but I know he does it just to [censored] people off, which
is amusing. But he's so arrogant...

Quoted message said:

Things like the
G&Ts are clearly designed to [censored] target groups and
consequentially get a laugh at thier expense.

Exactly, and I do find that amusing. I especially liked the gourmet meal in
the tent!

He likes Genesis though, so he can't be all bad...

Quoted message said:

PS to PS Did you send me something? It didnt arrive.

Sorry, got distracted again. Remind me again in the next week or so if I
keep forgetting.

no problem. I'm currently busy trying to work out what torrent is to
download some stuff. That and the Red Bull air race in FS, bloody
impossible!
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The Reid said:

I'm currently busy trying to work out what torrent is to download some stuff.

Try Azureus.

Jim Ford

Following up to Jim Ford said:

Quoted message said:

I'm currently busy trying to work out what torrent is to download some stuff.

Try Azureus.

thanks!
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Hi,

Quoted message said:

bit out of their league. And they seemed to be trivialising the whole thing!

Don't be fooled. What is said on screen and what goes on when the
cameras are switched off or during pre-production are two totally
separate things. The whole idea of the TG features is that they LOOK
spontaneous and care free. In reality they aren't. The H&S procedures
for shooting even a basic news report of the BBC are extensive, let
alone a feature of the magnitude that TG usually take on.

Quoted message said:

1. Is going to the North Pole really that easy these days? (Yeah I know it
wasn't the real one.)

No. As they found out when they got stuck in that rocky region!

Quoted message said:

2. Is going to the fake North Pole that much easier than the real one?

Probably not to be honest. The people who are saying it wasn't the real
north pole are being rather pedantic IMHO.

Quoted message said:

3. Were they really in that much danger? i.e. did they have huge support
teams in case anything went wrong?

Yes, there were three trucks with experienced people on board. These
were clearly seen in the programme itself. Also they couldn't shoot it
otherwise. Its one thing to go on an expedition, but to shoot the thing
with multiple cameras that are travelling alongside, and also getting
really stylish photography as they do with TG is no small task in such a
situation.

Quoted message said:

4. Have you noticed how the car always wins in their "artifically created"
challenges?

Actually they don't. The car vs bike. Car vs runner. Car vs tank. Car vs
greyhound. Car vs canoe. And on some of the other big challenges the car
has often only just won.

But they do edit stuff for effect a lot of the time. In the car vs
mountain boarder segment in reality the mountain boarder won. But it was
edited so that the Bobcat rally car won it.

Quoted message said:

5. What about Richard Hammond? His part of the challenge seemed to be a lot
more challenging, but we didn't see much of him at all.

Because it is a car programme! But also because being a camera crew on a
sled would be damn hard. These guys shoot on Digibeta (and possibly now
HDCAM), and these aren't handycam sized things and they drink power.

Quoted message said:

6. Given that Clarkeson managed to trash the car, how come they won? Did
they switch to using the "spare car"? Do I detect a bit of cheating here?

No, as they showed in the programme itself they had a support car. They
replaced the shock absorber that was broken, and took off the extra fuel
tank which was wrecked. They did the rest of the journey on the standard
fuel tank.

Simon
--
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk

Quoted message said:

I don't really care how he spells his name, he is still a buffoon.

How so? Because he says things that you don't agree with? That doesn't
make him a buffoon, it makes him a person with an opinion. And quite
often he is spot on. The difference between Clarkson and the PC brigade
is apparent when they have both been on the same television programme or
radio interview. While Clarkson makes factual arguments, and cleverly
injexts humour into the proceedings to make his points, the PC brigade
usually just resort to calling him names and making personal insults.

Quoted message said:

Point of order. Clarkeson always wins which is a shame really as he is
by far the worst of the presenters.

On the contrary. Not only is he a very good presenter, he is also very
well informed (which allows him to say so much stuff that people don't
like. If you don't like him now, you'll hate the forthcoming safety
tests on these new eco cars that are around these days. Great if you
don't value your legs.) Besides, if not for Clarkson those other
presenters wouldn't have a job on the show.

Clarkson has a very self depreciating sense of humour. Much of what he
says is said with his tongue firmly in his cheek. But for some reasons
there are many that completely fail to pick up on this and take
everything he says at face value! Which I suppose is all the more funny
because he likes to wind such people up, and they play right into his
hands by causing a fuss, which in turn gets him more publicity, and more
people watching Top Gear! Top Gear incidentally is one of the most
popular programmes in the world. It has won two Emmy awards and is the
most pirated television show on the internet. I know a lot of production
people in other countries and they are totally envious of its production
values, looks, and way of shooting.

Quoted message said:

Suffers by not being Clarkeson who pulls the strings on Top Gear.

An assumption without basis. If you think Hammond is just a short guy
with no power behind the scenes you are very, very, very mistaken. Same
with James May. He might come across as the guy that the others take the
mick out of all the time, but once again don't be mistaken by thinking
he just goes along with everything behind the scenes. The fact that you
have certain beliefs about such things shows that the presenters are
playing their characters very well.

Quoted message said:

Just happened to be carrying a spare shock absorber didn't they? But

Well of course it would stand to reason that the BBC would allow 3 of
its most famous and popular presenters to go out to the north pole
completely unprepared and without support! C'mon people. Of course they
would carry a spare shock absorber. In rough terrain it is a component
that fails regularly!

Quoted message said:

protection further back and an auxiliary fuel tank just waiting to be
trashed.

Your point being? This is pedantic. Are we to have expected the vehicle
to be perfect and totally bullet proof, perhaps completely indestructible?

Simon
--
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk