Oh, you lucky peeps. Managed to find the time to dash off a quick post - hopefully it's one that you'll think was worthwhile.
******
A couple of years or so back I was in a shop with someone I know and got to talking about TV shows for kids with the two female shop assistants (who, I guess, were in their 40s). It was a sort of card/gift shop and there must've been some item or other that kick-started the discussion. We briefly talked about BAGPUSS and various other shows, and I mentioned HECTOR'S HOUSE, which elicited an interested enquiry from the pair. As I started to explain, the guy I was with suddenly ejaculated in an exasperated manner "For Pete's sake, Gordie, they're far too young to have ever seen Hector's House!" I put his remark down to an attempt to ingratiate himself with the women by indulging in a bit of fawning flattery, so I ignored him and calmly continued my discourse. However, as we were leaving, my companion looked at the duo with an apologetic expression on his kipper and said "Sorry about that!" I considered his remark patronising (to the women) in the extreme, and insulting to me, so I said to them "Well, you've heard of Bagpuss - he's Sourpuss!" (I presume their rejoining laughter indicated their agreement.) As you may have gathered, I wasn't best-pleased with his obnoxious attitude.
Now, here's an interesting fact. Bagpuss was first screened in 1974 and Hector's House, though first broadcast in Britain in 1968, was still being regularly repeated by the BBC up until at least 1975. Both shows are readily available on DVD and YouTube, and have most likely been shown at various times on TV over the years. Many parents purchase DVDs of old TV shows for their kids, whether they actually watched them themselves when young or not. My point being that those two women were just as likely to have seen - or not seen - one show as the other. Going by the logic of my companion, I shouldn't have heard of, never mind seen, FRANKENSTEIN, which was made in 1931, or DOUBLE INDEMNITY, made in 1944 - or anything else that was issued prior to my arrival in the world. You see the flaw in his thinking? To assume that because someone wasn't born when a movie or TV show was first shown means they can't possibly have heard of it, is extremely condescending - and blinkered.
On another occasion we were in a comics shop and, during my enquiry to an assistant (the manager actually) about a publication with some DALEKS strips, I referred to TV CENTURY 21. "Gordie, he wasn't even born then, so there's no point going on with that!" this same fellow interjected. I ignored him and continued, "TV21 was a comic in the '60s that published comic strips based on GERRY ANDERSON puppet shows." My way, the guy learned a snippet of information that may prove useful in dealing with future enquiries from others, the other guy's way, he remains ignorant and clueless about a landmark in British comics publishing. That's assuming that he hadn't actually heard of TV21 of course; the fact is, it's unlikely, because the shop sold various books reprinting strips from the comic and he's bound to have seen the name at one time or another. (Granted, whether it made any impression on him or not is a different matter.)
If you pay people the compliment of assuming that they're at least as informed as you are on a subject, they may (and fairly often do) live up to your expectations - if not, they'll soon let you know and you can then take the opportunity to bring them 'up to speed'. The point is, knowledge is for sharing. If you share your knowledge, you enlighten others; if you assume that everyone else is mired in ignorance and keep your knowledge to yourself, then if that's how they are, that's how they'll remain. Don't know about you, but I know which approach I prefer.