Exactly my thoughts. They also thought my topic too obscure so wanted to mould it to just the PL overall, or US Presidents when I mentioned I was ok with those. Then with other people they said their topics were too broad. Seems a bit stupid, either get people on the show who are experts in something specific (and I'd say Hull City is still understandable for a wide audience "Oh they play in the Premier League? This should be a fun topic." versus something like anatomy of the human heart or some ****), or get people on with broad, bland topics like "Harry Potter" "Star Wars" "ABBA" etc.
That actually happened to me. After the interview they said I'd answered too well and it was as if I'd practised for it! They weren't impressed that I answered everything correctly straightaway. They said it was like I didn't have to think about the answers. I decided then that I was too good for them. I think it's the same with Syd.
Yeah I suspect having someone on a quiz show who keeps buzzing in first - and admittedly I did do it a few times and get it wrong, although I wasn't doing it for the sake of it - isn't what they're after.
If you've ever seen the show being argumentative would be a positive. The host loves to give it to the contestants and likes it when they argue back.
"So I hear you're actually the President of the Hull City Australia Supporters Group" "Yep that's right" "So what, you and your mate watch the games together on a Saturday night and that's the Group?" "Yeah that's right Tom, he's tuning in right now so I've already doubled your viewers"
Too good for you too if you didn't understand it. Ok it was slightly ambiguous. Well done for spotting it. I'm not looking for a long winded semantic or syntactical argument. It's a day off from that kind of thing today.
