cyber.cafe first programme...oh dear

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Lloyd

unread,
Jul 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/1/96
to

Just a note to say that "cyber.cafe", ITV's first ever "networked" (at
about 1.30am on random days that is) show about the Internet, was rather
disappointing:

* Why was the picture framed in swirly green graphics at the top and
bottom ? HTML frames are bad enough - we don't need the TV equivalent !

* Whoever thought of continually switching from a colour close-up shot to
a longer B&W shot (which included the camera crew !) and then back again
frequently clearly deserves an entry in Chambers dictionary under the
word "irritating".

* There wasn't much to choose between "the best of the WWW sites" and the
"worst of the WWW sites" sections and why did we need two gormless presenters
(in a pointlessly framed box...ho hum) for this when a full-screen close-up
of the WWW pages with an offscreen commentary would have been much better ?

* Better editing of the interviews was clearly needed, particularly during
the McSpotlight interview where things did not flow smoothly.

For people who missed it (no need to cry, you didn't miss anything important),
there's always the WWW pages:

http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/

Makes you pine for the return of "The Net", doesn't it (which actually
improved markedly after its horrendous start) ?

Richard K. Lloyd, E-mail: r...@csc.liv.ac.uk
Connect, WWW: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/users/rkl/
5-31, Great Newton St,
Liverpool University,
Merseyside, UK. L69 3BX


Lance S. Buckley

unread,
Jul 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/2/96
to

In article <DtvH0...@csc.liv.ac.uk> r...@csc.liv.ac.uk "Richard Lloyd" writes:


] Makes you pine for the return of "The Net", doesn't it (which actually


] improved markedly after its horrendous start) ?

Kinda. I think that judging it so harshly after a first
outing is unfair. Having said that they won't improve unless we
direct a little -constructive- criticism their way. TV
desparately needs a good net related program. In it's present
format this is definitely not the one to fill that need.
However the production team is small, and probably the budget
too. This means they are going to be quite flexible in their
approach to the subject. I don't think useful suggestions to
them at Meridian will be ignored. After all if it folds after
the first season they'll all be looking for new jobs.

My suggestions are (in no particular order of importance):

Get out of that dreadful CyberCafe and change the name. Just
because it's computers doesn't mean you have to ram HiTek down
our throats. It won't appeal to the ignorati, and only serves to
piss of the nerds. If the program is any good, word will spread
soon enough. Pretending you're "hip" won't wash with those in
the know, and they're the only ones who'll bother to stay up and
watch it at first.

Don't treat your viewers like idiots. Even a Dixon's droid knows
what a "modem" is these days. You'll have to byte the bullet and
assume everyone watching knows the basics. You could do well to
take a look Gamesmater. They knew their target audience and
didn't condescend. Try not to be so gung ho. There's a lot of
crap on the net. Get a bit hard nosed about it and moan.

Try to be a little more original with your production
techniques. The current camerawork is the TV equivalent of
<BLINK> in HTML and as has been done a -lot- better already by
other programs.

I'f you're going to appeal to the purient interests of your
viewers then do it. Why not keep the "pervs on the net" stuff
confined to a regular slot. It could be one of a set of regular
tasks to set Anna during the show. I'm sure she'd have little
trouble tracking down something perverse each week. Possibly a
person who's WWW site she tracks down can be invited to the show
later to chat about it with her.

Make sure you treat at least one serious article in depth each
week. What would attract me to the show is the belief I'd learn
something there I couldn't find in 5 minutes on the net. The
McDonalds bit was a good start. Keep it up.

Don't keep it based all in one place. I realise you're on a
shoestring, but an occasional OB on Hi8 wouldn't break the bank.
I'd lik to see behind the scenes at ISPs and net related mags etc.

Last but not least, you sorely need a presenter who wears a Fedora.

Lance.

--
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Lederer/Vollet, alledged ex-head of B1(UK)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) J&D ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora

Richard Sliwa

unread,
Jul 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/2/96
to

r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) wrote:

<snip reviewette>

erm.... shouldn't that be "...oh *cheap* " in the header?
:)

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

--
Richard, hoping it gets better, and MORE OF ANNA!

Adewale Oshineye

unread,
Jul 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/2/96
to

Lance S. Buckley wrote:
>
> In article <DtvH0...@csc.liv.ac.uk> r...@csc.liv.ac.uk "Richard Lloyd" writes:
> My suggestions are (in no particular order of importance):
>
> Get out of that dreadful CyberCafe and change the name. Just
Better still go to different cafes every week, I mean I like the people at Cafe
Internet and all but they are'nt exactly on the cutting edge, are they?

> because it's computers doesn't mean you have to ram HiTek down
> our throats. It won't appeal to the ignorati, and only serves to
> piss of the nerds. If the program is any good, word will spread
> soon enough. Pretending you're "hip" won't wash with those in
> the know, and they're the only ones who'll bother to stay up and
> watch it at first.
>
> Don't treat your viewers like idiots. Even a Dixon's droid knows
> what a "modem" is these days. You'll have to byte the bullet and
> assume everyone watching knows the basics. You could do well to
> take a look Gamesmater. They knew their target audience and
> didn't condescend. Try not to be so gung ho. There's a lot of
> crap on the net. Get a bit hard nosed about it and moan.
Who exactly are they aiming the show at? Is it ethnic programming for the on-line
community or are they trying to educate people who aren't on the Net.
They also have to make up their minds that they expect their viewers to have some sort
of access to the Net otherwise it's just pointless.

>
> Make sure you treat at least one serious article in depth each
> week. What would attract me to the show is the belief I'd learn
> something there I couldn't find in 5 minutes on the net. The
> McDonalds bit was a good start. Keep it up.

More than that how about looking at the developments which are affecting the Net, like
the naming debacle with Nominet.

> I'd lik to see behind the scenes at ISPs and net related mags etc.

Definitely!

>
> Last but not least, you sorely need a presenter who wears a Fedora.

I hear Douglas Hogg is going to be free, why not give im a call.
>
How about using your Website toi tell people when the show's on in different parts of
the country? Now that would be useful. Come to think of it the show doesn't really
make use of the Net, it seems to me to pretty much follow the standard programme
about hobbies format that the tv companies regularly churn out.
BTW seeing as most people will tape it and watch it at a later time you might as well
do something like "Bad Influence's" datablast, where they transmitted information that
viewers could read by pausing the video, that way the show could be marginally useful
to somebody.
--
Adewale Oshineye
Ambition is a poor excuse
for not having enough sense to be lazy.
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~websoc/ta5330

Dominic Ramsey

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

Adewale Oshineye <TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:

>Lance S. Buckley wrote:
>
>> My suggestions are (in no particular order of importance):
>>
>> Get out of that dreadful CyberCafe and change the name. Just
>
>Better still go to different cafes every week, I mean I like the people at Cafe
>Internet and all but they are'nt exactly on the cutting edge, are they?

This is probably quite difficult when they are filming 9 programmes at a
time, not to mention expensive.

>How about using your Website toi tell people when the show's on in different
>parts of
>the country?

Er... we are. See http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/trandate.htm

The trouble is the various regions seem to be able to change times
whenever they like. It's *probably* easier just to look in the paper.

>do something like "Bad Influence's" datablast, where they transmitted
>information that
>viewers could read by pausing the video, that way the show could be marginally
>useful
>to somebody.

The URL of the web site is given in the credits, and the web site
includes info and links for the current programme. There is the
possibility of expanding it to include some of the sites Anna finds in
her challenges though.

Dom
--
[ webmaster @ cyber.cafe ]
http://www.dynamite.co.uk/dynamo
DISCLAIMER: IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!

Richard Lloyd

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <vl2OUHAg...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>,

Dominic Ramsey <dyn...@dynamite.co.uk> writes:
>The trouble is the various regions seem to be able to change times
>whenever they like. It's *probably* easier just to look in the paper.

Or you could employ the novel concept of editing the WWW page each week :-)
It's on HTV at 2.35am on Thursday morning this week, so the WWW page
is currently giving the wrong transmission time because it was last
edited at 11.01pm on Friday 28th June :-(

Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
"The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?
Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?

Nick Rothwell

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <Dtywo...@csc.liv.ac.uk> r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) writes:
> Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
> couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
> "The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?

And "The Net" was?

(Join the Jules Fan Club here...)
--
Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL contemporary dance projects
http://www.cassiel.com music synthesis and control

years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again

Anthony Cunningham

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <Dtywo...@csc.liv.ac.uk>,
r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) wrote:


>Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
>couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
>"The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?

Are you suggesting that 'The Net' was good?

>Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?

Neither did the people who made 'The Net'.

T


Lance S. Buckley

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <vl2OUHAg...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>
dyn...@dynamite.co.uk "Dominic Ramsey" writes:

] This is probably quite difficult when they are filming 9 programmes at a


] time, not to mention expensive.

Hmmm...well maybe it's something they can budget for in the next
series. That place it too claustraphobic for my taste. YMMV of course.

] Er... we are. See http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/trandate.htm

Hey, I went to the WWW site after the show, clicked on
Anna's picture and her clothes stayed on! What's the big idea?

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <Dtywo...@csc.liv.ac.uk>,
r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) wrote:

>Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
>couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
>"The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?

>Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?

I'm sure the producers want it to be good. All producers want all their
programmes to be terrific, and sweat blood trying to make it happen. But
the producers are only a small part of the story. They're the hired hands.
The basic decision about what gets on the air, and the allocation of
resources, is in the hands of the channel commissioners and schedulers.

"The Net" happened because the controller of BBC2 wanted to do something
about computers and comms, and for two years was prepared to spend a fair
amount of money on it. It got an excellent slot and in general I thought it
was bloody good.

From the circumstances (I haven't yet managed to see or record a programme)
it doesn't seem that anybody at ITV has the same level of commitment as
Michael Jackson had. "Cyber Cafe" is fairly clearly a night time filler.
ITV grinds on ludicrously through the night broadcasting to nobody and
their insomniac dog, and somehow they have to find *cheap* moving pictures
to fill the hours. All "Cyber Cafe" has to do is fill some air time and a
major priority is that it does it at a very low cost. If it catches on in
some way, the schedulers have the opportunity to bring it into their
mainstream programming; if it fails they dump it and try another one of the
huge queue of ideas that are pressing on them from hopeful independents. So
there's no risk for them, only opportunity. For the people making it, it's
a calling card; an opportunity to show that they could do something bigger
and better, not necessarily about comms or computing. Within their
crippling budget they will do their very best. But don't kid yourself that
there's a determination to do something good about the Net on ITV. There
clearly isn't.

However, at least somebody is getting a crack at doing something. It's
better than nothing at all, and it may turn out to be good. People learn as
they go along- there's no other way.

--
Peter

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <AE006260...@fma3.fma.com>,
t...@fma.com (Anthony Cunningham) wrote:

>Are you suggesting that 'The Net' was good?
>

>>Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?
>

>Neither did the people who made 'The Net'.

Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet. I
reckon that proves it was good.

--
Peter

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

In article <NICK.96J...@suilven.an-teallach.com>,
ni...@cassiel.com (Nick Rothwell) wrote:

(CyberCafe not good?)

>And "The Net" was?

Yes, it was excellent. It definitely helped with the public consciousness
and acceptance of the Internet in Britain.

>(Join the Jules Fan Club here...)

Now you're talking. Jules was GREAT.

--
Peter

Dominic Ramsey

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

"Lance S. Buckley" <la...@avalon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vl2OUHAg...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>
> dyn...@dynamite.co.uk "Dominic Ramsey" writes:
>
>] This is probably quite difficult when they are filming 9 programmes at a
>] time, not to mention expensive.
>
>Hmmm...well maybe it's something they can budget for in the next
>series. That place it too claustraphobic for my taste. YMMV of course.

I thought it was Ok. I think the atmosphere is certainly better than if
it had been filmed in a studio.

>] Er... we are. See http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/trandate.htm
>
>Hey, I went to the WWW site after the show, clicked on
>Anna's picture and her clothes stayed on! What's the big idea?

Funny you should mention that. The site is, after all, still under
development. Keep clicking on Anna and you never know what might happen.

:)

Geoff

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

Peter Ceresole (pe...@cara.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet. I

: reckon that proves it was good.

Even more how fascinating the amount of people who go around
slagging off "sad trainspotters on Usenet". Most of these are almost
certainly dweebs who will believe anything "The Net" tells them.

Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who actually knows anything
about the internet? Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who
doesn't like being talked down to, who doesn't like the phrase
"surfing the information superhighway" being rammed down their throats?

.

Anna Warman

unread,
Jul 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/3/96
to

OK. I've stayed out of the fray so far, but here are a few of my views -
and I'm *not* speaking on behalf of the programme-makers, but as an
internet-user who has become involved in the programme via an ad in uk.net
and has seen how things work from the other side.

First, no internet programme is going to satisfy everyone. Somewhere
along the line, you're going to have to pitch it at a specific audience.
cyber.cafe is aimed primarily at non-internet users, which is why it's
felt that terms like 'modem' have to be explained.

Second, the budget for this programme is *miniscule* - around UKP4,800
per episode (as opposed to something in the order of UKP80,000 for each
episode of The Net). With such a tiny budget, this programme is very
ambitious and I think it's to the production team's credit that they can
produce so much for so little. Look at other small budget programmes
broadcast at similar times for a comparison.

Four weeks ago, we filmed the first seven episodes in three days. Last
week, we filmed 9 episodes in three days. The effects of doing it like
this are a) the editing is being done at a phenomenal rate (the first
ep going out three weeks after filming) b) the production team are under
enormous pressure and c) any feedback about the programme can't be
incorporated until towards the end of the series (we film the final 10
programmes at the end of September).

With regards to updating the website. Dom is doing everything he can -
but he has to wait on information from the cyber.cafe team, who, it's
been established, are up to their eyeballs in editing. Dom had
redesigned the site the day after it was broadcast, based on what he'd
seen on TV - I think he's doing a great job.

The programme is very reliant on people getting in touch with them
about their own internet experiences. I think they've done very well
to get the diversity of people they have, so far.

Rather than slag off the programme here, why not write to Jeremy Smith
(Associate Producer) with ideas and suggestions on topics they could
research for those last 10 episodes. They are unable to reply to
criticism here, due to Meridian policy (whereby they can only write
here what they've written in a press-release). Their email address
is: cybe...@interalpha.co.uk


ANNA 'The Keyboard Queen' :)

Visit my in-flight safety page - http://www.plsys.co.uk/~anna/inflight.htm

Peter Krüger

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <AE00919E...@cara.demon.co.uk>, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) says:


>Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet. I
>reckon that proves it was good.


I think the ‘train spotters’ have moved on to whinging about
the finer points of html on media orientated web sites. The
trouble with TV programmes about the net is that everyone has
their own idea of what the Internet is and should be. Over the last
year or so most of the expansion of the Internet has been driven
by corporates to suite commercial interests. This leaves what in
the PC market would be regarded as hobbyists or home users
maginalised.

If applications such as voice on the net and video on demand catch
on - and if the bandwidth is available to support such applications -
then maybe programmes such as Cyber Cafe will have something
constructive to talk about. At the moment the lowest common denominator
on the Internet is text based communication. This does not make
good TV - even though it is the only area of the Internet where innovative
content is being developed. This leaves programmes such as Cyber
Cafe dealing the weird, wonderful and trivial all of which would be
laughed at, or ignored, if they were produced in any other medium

Peter

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gold.net/flames/
fla...@flames.cityscape.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Cunningham

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <AE00919E...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet.

Isn't it time for you to pick up your anorak from the dry-cleaners?
T

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <4rerok$a...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
geo...@jumper.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff) wrote:

>Even more how fascinating the amount of people who go around
>slagging off "sad trainspotters on Usenet". Most of these are almost
>certainly dweebs who will believe anything "The Net" tells them.

I hardly think so. I wasn't slagging them off; after all, they're God's
creatures too.

>Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who actually knows anything
>about the internet? Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who
>doesn't like being talked down to, who doesn't like the phrase
>"surfing the information superhighway" being rammed down their throats?

No. It was a good programme with faults- like all good programmes. Real
people would point out the faults, and give praise for the bits that worked
well. The trainspotters simply couldn't make that leap of the imagination
and spluttered all over their keyboards.

--
Peter

Nick Rothwell

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <AE00919E...@cara.demon.co.uk> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
> >(Join the Jules Fan Club here...)
>
> Now you're talking. Jules was GREAT.

I've been out-trolled.

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <4rg69j$h...@tardis.tardis.ed.ac.uk>,
t...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Anthony Cunningham) wrote:

>>Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet.
>
>Isn't it time for you to pick up your anorak from the dry-cleaners?

You have to be joking. Far too modern for me. I am sitting here wearing my
WW2 surplus Army driver's leather jerkin. So cool it's cryonic.

--
Peter

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96
to

In article <83647133...@ciscw97.demon.co.uk>,
fla...@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Krüger) wrote:

>I think the ‘train spotters’ have moved on to whinging about
>the finer points of html on media orientated web sites.

Well it does pass the afternoon pleasantly enough.

>At the moment the lowest common denominator
>on the Internet is text based communication. This does not make
>good TV - even though it is the only area of the Internet where innovative
>content is being developed.

Absolutely right. The pleasure of the Internet is 99% in ASCII. And for a
programme maker, ASCII is a killer.

I made quite a few 'Horizons' and even in the time I was making them,
computers became more and more important in the science and technology I
was trying to explain. Every time a computer sequence came up, my heart
sank. They are inherently dull to look at. In the good old days a scientist
might be working at a bench, and the glass and brass might be belching
interesting fumes from the reaction of multicoloured liquids. Now, they are
more likely to inject a tenth of a mil into a plastic machine, and then
analyse reams of info on a screen.

It's okay; with a lot of work and imagination you can get back to the
people behind it all and tweak them into revealing the enthusiasm that's
almost always there. Graphics can help explain what's going on as well as
being fun and elegant (although they cost a bomb). Best of all is when
something horrific happens to the results and the group huddled round the
screen breaks up; that's great but it takes a long time to get- *if* it
happens at all. But computers themselves are a visual dead loss, and screen
shots of text are even more boring than Barry Manilow.

Making programmes about what people actually do on and with computers is a
killer. You need time and money to make it work. I think "The Net" gave it
quite a good crack. "CyberCafe", with their micro-minuscule budget, are
really up against it.

--
Peter

Anthony Cunningham

unread,
Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96
to

In article <AE01BFD0...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

>You have to be joking. Far too modern for me. I am sitting here wearing my
>WW2 surplus Army driver's leather jerkin. So cool it's cryonic.

Kewl! Where did you get it? Do they have any left?

T

Geoff. Lane

unread,
Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96
to

In article <AE028F579...@fma3.fma.com>,

May I just mention "dweebs" here?

No?

Oh.

--
Geoff. Lane. | | http://swirl.mcc.ac.uk/

Make Headlines..use a corduroy pillow....


Scott Thomas

unread,
Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96
to

>] Makes you pine for the return of "The Net", doesn't it (which actually
>] improved markedly after its horrendous start) ?
I always enjoyed the Net and it encouraged me to go on-line. Always
interesting and varied.

However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)

James Eibisch

unread,
Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96
to

On Wed, 03 Jul 96 22:27:47 GMT, Anna Warman <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Rather than slag off the programme here, why not write to Jeremy Smith
>(Associate Producer) with ideas and suggestions

Twice I mailed Jeremy with some input, and twice got no reply. I shan't
bother again.

--
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://www.i-way.co.uk/~jeibisch/
=======

Dominic Ramsey

unread,
Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96
to

Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
>ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)

In other words, it's just like usenet and IRC? :)

Anna Warman

unread,
Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96
to

In article <Ku5kvXAM...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:

> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)

Thanks Scott.


ANNA, an on-line wally :(

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/6/96
to

In article <AE028F579...@fma3.fma.com>,
t...@fma.com (Anthony Cunningham) wrote:

>>You have to be joking. Far too modern for me. I am sitting here wearing my
>>WW2 surplus Army driver's leather jerkin. So cool it's cryonic.
>
>Kewl! Where did you get it? Do they have any left?

My dad got it in 1948. He was very cool (that was how it was spelt in those
days). I inherited it, along with his first world war German army belt.

Kewlerama.

--
Peter

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jul 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/6/96
to

In article <4ril6r$5...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
zza...@swirl.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff. Lane) wrote:

>May I just mention "dweebs" here?

No.

"Kewl' is the only word that covers it.

--
Peter

Gordon Joly

unread,
Jul 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/6/96
to

On the subject of "The Net", the web page speaks for itself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/the_net/

Gordo
--
--
Gordon Joly http://pobox.com/~gjoly/
go...@dircon.co.uk gordo...@pobox.com

Dominic Ramsey

unread,
Jul 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/6/96
to

Anna Warman <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Ku5kvXAM...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
> sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
>
>> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
>> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
>
>Thanks Scott.
>
>ANNA, an on-line wally :(

Hmmmm. I wonder if Scott is ashamed to be alive with all the real-life
wallies there are out there?

Paul Copsey

unread,
Jul 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/7/96
to

Scott Thomas (sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel

: ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)

Funny thing is, I found thee second one to be not as bad as the first.

Paul

Adewale Oshineye

unread,
Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96
to
Somebody tell me what it was about I missed it, way past my bedtime. And
the first episode didn't make me want to set my VCR to tape it.
--
Adewale Oshineye
The sooner you fall behind,
the more time you have to catch up.
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~websoc/ta5330

Scott Thomas

unread,
Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96
to

In article <836604...@warman.demon.co.uk>, Anna Warman
<AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <Ku5kvXAM...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
> sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
>
>> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
>> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
>
>Thanks Scott.
>
>
>ANNA, an on-line wally :(
Don't mention it! Any time! :))

Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
sleaze and trash.


I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!
--
Scott Thomas

Dominic Ramsey

unread,
Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96
to

Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
>mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
>sleaze and trash.
>
>I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!

Ah, so it's the internet you don't like, not the programme?

Paul Copsey

unread,
Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96
to

Adewale Oshineye (TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:

: Somebody tell me what it was about I missed it, way past my bedtime. And


: the first episode didn't make me want to set my VCR to tape it.

Some saddo chatting up women on IRC, who got caught, seeking out nude
celebs on the net, and some other stuff I've forgotten ;-)

Paul

A Stoat

unread,
Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96
to

>
> Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
> mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
> sleaze and trash.

Yes! I would be interested in other country's net cultures e.g. what
proportion pay for net access; how many are just freeloading on some
University/employer account; what services are used most (email, usenet,
web etc.); is it fun/useful/essential/obsessive to people; uk net magazine
reviews (I stopped buying EARLY days, have they improved?).

Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
downloading web pages etc.?
Hate the bw camera bits.

Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.

--
A Stoat

Richard Sliwa

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

A Stoat wrote:
>
> >
> > Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
> > mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
> > sleaze and trash.
>
> Yes! I would be interested in other country's net cultures e.g. what
> proportion pay for net access; how many are just freeloading on some
> University/employer account; what services are used most (email, usenet,
> web etc.); is it fun/useful/essential/obsessive to people; uk net magazine
> reviews (I stopped buying EARLY days, have they improved?).
>
> Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
> Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
> downloading web pages etc.?
> Hate the bw camera bits.

Have you emailed them directly? During the show, they appealed for ideas on
what sort of items to cover. Discussing this stuff here is fine, but you
have the opportunity to takes your ideas straight to the top. Take advantage
of it! I'm in no way connected to the show (in fact, there are a few
articles in this ng where I've had my say already), but having written to
them myself, I can tell you that they are *very* keen for all net users'
ideas.

For the record, you want to write to Jeremy Smith at

cybe...@interalpha.co.uk

>
> Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.

Isn't it just! ,*grin*>

--
Richard Sliwa

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~rjsliwa

Guy Barry

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

Scott Thomas wrote:

> Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
> mention of Usenet?

Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream media
coverage of the Internet?

(Maybe it's just as well. We'd probably get an even higer proportion
of hopeless cases posting than we do at the moment.)

Guy Barry

Paul Rhodes

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

Guy Barry <gba...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> wrote:

>Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream media
>coverage of the Internet?

Umm.... seen Mission: Impossible yet?

Now how did he do *that*?

Paul

Scott Thomas

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

In article <d8Qo7KAD...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>, Dominic Ramsey
<dyn...@dynamite.co.uk> writes

>Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
>>mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
>>sleaze and trash.
>>
>>I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!
>
>Ah, so it's the internet you don't like, not the programme?
>
>Dom
I think a great deal on the Internet is complete garbage. It is
potentially a wonderful and creative medium for interesting and
informative global debate and information. However it is being clogged
up with mindless sleaze and twaddle, which is a sad reflection on
humanity in general.
--
Scott Thomas

Anna Warman

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

In article <836850...@alanhe.demon.co.uk>
3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk "A Stoat" writes:

> Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
> Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
> downloading web pages etc.?

The Cafe Internet has a leased line which is pretty fast. The sites do
sometimes take a while to access and download, so I save the pages I've
found and intend to use. It would be really dead time, TV-wise, if we had
to wait for the pages to download.

> Hate the bw camera bits.

I've got the feeling you're not the only one...



> Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.

Oooh. :) Thanks.


ANNA, who's become a dab-hand with search engines.

Anna Warman

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

In article <CH6wOXA4...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:

> <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> writes


> > sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
> >
> >> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
> >> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
> >

> >ANNA, an on-line wally :(
> Don't mention it! Any time! :))

<pout>

> Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease.

I had a blast, doing that. :) I was also pleased to note that there
were quite a few pics to titillate women - I've always been led to
believe that most of the sleaze is aimed at men.

> The WWW is so overrated anyway.

In some respects it is - but there's lots of good stuff out there. My
biggest bugbear is that it's all so *slow*.

> Why no
> mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
> sleaze and trash.

The programme is aimed at people who know little or nothing about the
internet. For that kind of audience, what would be of most interest
are the people who already use it and the stories they have about it.
An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).

Not all of the programme is about sleaze - Mark Thomas was interesting,
the item on McSpotlight was too. There are quite a few interviews coming
up which have nothing to do with sex/porn/other_sensationalist_stuff.



> I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!

You must be doing something wrong. :)

Anyway, if you've got some really good ideas, write to Jeremy Smith
(Associate Producer) at cybe...@interalpha.co.uk - there are ten
programmes left to film - here's your opportunity to help shape them.


ANNA, who was long ago labelled a usenet smut queen and likes the sleazy
bits of the internet. :)

Steve Paget

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

In article: <31E2569E...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> Guy Barry
<gba...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> writes:
> Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream
media
> coverage of the Internet?
>
> (Maybe it's just as well. We'd probably get an even higer proportion
> of hopeless cases posting than we do at the moment.)

Mee to

--
I wonder where that sig has gone?
You did love it so, you treated it like a son.
And it went.. wherever I... did go!


Charity

unread,
Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96
to

Guy Barry (gba...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk) wrote:
: Scott Thomas wrote:

: > Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
: > mention of Usenet?

: Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream media
: coverage of the Internet?

Because it's hard to sell, from a media point of view.

You can >show< someone a web page, and they can grasp it on some level
at first glance. They are colourful, and they make sense, if only on
a level of "it's an electronic brochure"

Try showing someone who's never seen the net Usenet -- it takes longer
to grasp what's happening, and how it happens, and what it's use might
be, and as a visual thing, it's just not as interesting a screen shot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Web is the end-all and be-all,
just that if you want to show something briefly without losing half
your audience with explanations, the Web is the obvious choice...

* Sylvia *

--
syl...@intrigue.co.uk http://www.roundabout.org/~sylvia/
"instant gratification isn't quick enough"

Guybarry

unread,
Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96
to

In article <836944...@warman.demon.co.uk>, AN...@warman.demon.co.uk
(Anna Warman) writes:

>An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
>probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
>see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).

Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It could
open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.

Guy Barry

Dominic Ramsey

unread,
Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96
to

Guybarry <guyb...@aol.com> wrote:

>Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It could
>open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.

Why not go the whole hog and invite the flame war participants into the
cafe and give them all semi-automatic weapons...

...excuse me while I mail Jeremy... :)

Jeremy Smith

unread,
Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96
to

Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:

+Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why
no
+mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
+sleaze and trash.

Hello there. I think the points above could do with being answered,
and since I work on the show I thought I'd answer them.

Nude celebrities. A controversial challenge. Two points: The show is
trying to appeal to both net-people and non-users. We didn't suggest
as part of the item that the presence of this material on the Web
makes the Net a bad thing.

A review of internet providers - brilliant idea. One that we've all
come up with during production meetings. Sadly, since we film all the
shows a long time before transmission, all the information would be
out of date when it went out. It's a practical point forced on us by
the budget.

Why no coverage of Usenet? Firstly as someone has already pointed out
in this thread, ASCII makes dreadful television. Secondly, we *are*
covering Usenet where we can. For example, keep watching for a man who
found support in a newsgroup when he was diagnosed with a terminal
disease.

We love doing these stories: they're really interesting, but sadly I
have found them hard to get.

Regards,

Jeremy Smith
Associate Producer

cyber.cafe cybe...@interalpha.co.uk
www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber
anonymous cybe...@anon.penet.fi


Paul Copsey

unread,
Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96