On 28/12/17 11:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 10:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

On 28/12/17 08:13, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/12/17 22:19, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:44:18 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 27/12/2017 08:20, PeterC wrote:

All the hand waggling strts to make me feel a bit nauseous - it
should be optional,

It is optional.Â* It will be repeat of a normal program with
inserted
hand waving. If recording the program there will be a code in
the EPG
description to identify this type of repeat so that you can
exclude it
by using your program filters.

One programme that I wanted was broadcast in the early morning as
the
only version without a news ticker; unfortunately it had the signing
and I find that can almost memerise me if I'm making an effort to
ignore it. There should be the option for people with such 'minor'
'disabilities'.

My point is simple: Who can read signing who *cannot* read subtitles?

I.e. this 'service' has been completely superseded by digital
transmision.

Ergo all those handwaving ****s are, is an unnecessary and unwelcome
expense.

Particularly at the operaÂ*performance I went to a couple of years
ago.Â* If you're deaf and can't hear the music, why go.

It seems that you and the OP have perfect everything, except for the
fact that your *thinking* processes are profoundly ****ed up.

In what way?

Just take charles as an example. If he just goes to the opera for the
music, why bother?

Why bother with what? Or d'ye mean, why bother to go?

Yes. Why bother to go for the music and singing if you wish to be that
precise?



I go largely for the music, assuming that you include the singing as
part of the music. And I do know what the rest involves, having
volunteered for more than 10 years for a semi-pro opera company (not in
this country, though).


Perhaps those who are unable to hear the racket go for the story and
visual experience.