If you insist on sitting in the cheap seats Jon, I'll spell it out for you:
No need to throw derogatory insults. It's just a discussion. Nothing personal
The 'last post' you allude to in the quote above didn't contain a question mark. By definition that makes it a statement, any question therein must, therefore, be implied.
OK, well put a question mark on the end and answer it then. My apologies for missing the ? off.
You did, however, state this:
Originally Posted by JonathanD 
All other programme content criticism should be aimed at the programme makers. He is just the person they pay to do and say what is scripted.
Which amounts to the same thing and is EXACTLY what I was trying to address. "ALL OTHER PROGRAMME CONTENT CRITICISM"... err... no. Sorry... if it wasn't something he wasn't happy with he could have simply said no and gone his own way, as it appears he has now done. We did this bit earlier and, as I recall, you agreed that a contract did not excuse any content.
I'm glad you quoted me, because I certainly didn't say "a contract excuses
any behaviour" as you had me saying. Big difference there. But I was talking about fake survival situations and artificial set up in the programming schedule. I already covered his personal acts like the bat tennis incident, as that was down to him and absolutely not on.
As for the snake biting, yes, he did that personally and agreed to it, so if you think it's gross and disgusting for him to do that then fine, blame him. But we are back to the original question I asked, that hasn't been answered, which is - Why is it deemed fine for other TV personalities to do the same thing, but Grylls is always maligned for it? As I've already stated in detail. I find killing an animal in that way gross, and shouldn't be done for sensationalist kicks. But it is a quick death for the animal and just as effective as a machete severing the head. I don't agree with doing it for TV, but I'm not going to malign Grylls for doing it when other people I admire on a much higher level do it too.
I'm not implying anything - you most definitely did bring up Ray biting a wichetty grub. Until that point I hadn't mentioned Ray other than a very oblique reference very early on regarding mortality in reply to something not linked to our current discussion.
Yes I did, there are few other TV personalities that do that kind of thing, but since that post I've included Lest Stroud, H F-W, Ramsay, Les Hiddins. The personality doesn't matter. It's the act. They all do it specifically on TV too.
Not at all - I don't know Mr. Grylls, but I do know his name isn't BEAR. I did hear it might be to do with Edward, hence Teddy leading to BEAR. To assume anything other than that from my text is incorrect.
Bear is his nickname. It's what he was called since he was born. I'm not going to slate him for having a nickname.
I'm not that petty Jon - but I will remove your formatting of white text on white background if you like. Why did you think I would pick you up on spelling when there is so much more to pick you up on, namely logic and reason?
That was removed right after I posted and a good 30 minutes before you repeated it, as it was daft and unnecessary on my part. You've not picked any holes in my logic and reason at all here. I've answered all your questions and addressed every issue you raised with some detail. You just keep changing the meaning of your questions each time I answer them.
So to sum it up. Again. What has Grylls done that should make him the object of such hate here, that threads have been locked, members have been banned and posts deleted for the content and vulgar attitudes they presented? What heights of misleading implications in programmes has Grylls attained, that Attenborough, Mears, Stevens et al hasn't that leads to so much hate for Grylls alone?
That is the crux of the issue and the one that needs answering, because so far, I can't find anything he has done that makes people post GBH threats and other hate filled posts filled with ***** words describing him. In fact, just the opposite, he does so much good for kids, charities and other bodies that are not so heavily discussed. Instead we get people questioning his name, his military career and making things up to perpetuate untruths.
