My latest reply to BBC3 about the DOG

On 14 Mar, 21:13, Edster wrote:
The Real Zarbiface wrote:

On 14 Mar, 19:52, Edster wrote:

You would still get freaks who say they don't even notice it.

LOL @ "freaks". Typical fanwank resentment of normal people who don't
get angry over a little tv ident.

IT'S ONLY TELLY!

My tv set is off and I'm going down the pub, getting a life.

If you don't watch TV, why do you care either way?

Now where did I say I never watched tv? It's all or nothing with some
of you guys isn't it?
Ever heard of selective viewing? You know; just turn on the tv when
you want to watch a programme and turn it off when it's finished? Or
is that heresy around here? LOL.

On 15 Mar, 10:18, " wrote:

My experience is that a lot of people just don't watch much TV anymore
(possibly because, as a New Scientist article pointed out this week,
more and more people are watching TV through other media, like the
internet).

And for having-on-in-the background entertainment there they're
turning to iPods and MP3 players. I've tried them, but I can't enjoy
them myself because the earpieces always feel so irritating. They
just cause me to build up lots and lots of earwax.

Instead, I'll stick to waiting until I get home where I can treat
myself to proper TV or radio in the proper background. Hope you're
not too annoyed by that...

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
On 14 Mar, 10:24, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article cbd68809-a775-4667-b46d-
, The Real Zarbiface wrote:

On 13 Mar, 23:05, " wrote:
Aggie:
[ If you cannot produce the evidence and publish it then your claim is clearly
a BLATANT LIE! ]
Frighteningly, this is apparently Aggy's idea of a reasoned, formal
letter of complaint.

It's so ludicrously blinkered it's unintentional comedy genius. You
can hear the laughter from the BBC from here as they read it.

No wonder the public consider cult tv fans to be geeks. LOL!

They'll just regard it as a bit of market research provided to them at
zero cost, an unsolicited acknowledgement that somebody actually
watches the show, so they'll add it to the viewing figures. I wonder if
the considerable time and trouble the correspondent has evidently put
into his communication to them would make it count as a block vote, and
if so, how many extra viewers they would claim as a result?

They'd treasure Aggy because they can guarantee counting him as two
viewers every week - one who watches Torchwood on BBC3 because he
loves the show so much he goes to the trouble of covering his screen
with silver foil to block out the DOG, and one who watches next week
on BBC2 because it doesn't have a DOG. Just think, if they got rid of
the DOG he'd only watch each episode once!

Oh, I'm _so_ glad I put the coffee down before I started reading this
thread.

--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.

Happiness will prevail

solar penguin wrote:

No. You would be _wrong_ to claim the _same_ people want both DOGs
and compressed credits. I want DOGS but I don't want compressed
credits. Therefore it cannot be the same group of people who want
both. (There may be some people who belong to both groups, but that
doesn't change the _fact_ that they are two seperate groups.)

Just because you are mentally subnormal why should the majority put up with
DOGs that serve no real purpose?

In article fe5c4840-72fb-421d-a5af-
, Solar penguin wrote:
And even when you do get the right button and bring the information up
on the screen, it doesn't stay there. *It disappears again after 30
seconds. *What's the point of that?

The point is to enable you to enjoy the programme without a permanent
blemish on the picture to tell you what you already know.

*When we press the light switch to
turn the light on, we don't expect it to turn off again after 30
seconds.

Indeed we don't, but the purpose of a light is a bit different from that
of something intended to impart information. It wouldn't be unreasonable
to presume that having been informed of which channel you are watching
you will stay informed, at least for the duration of the programme. It
seems to me a much more valid presumption than that it actually matters
which channel you are watching. Personally, I don't watch channels, I
watch programmes. I only need to know which channels carry the
programmes I want to watch when I am setting up a recording, when all I
do is type the numbers into the machine - and then forget them.

Rod.

On Mar 15, 9:40*am, solar penguin
wrote:
On 15 Mar, 08:49, hulahoop wrote:

On Mar 15, 2:47 am, solar penguin
wrote:

On 15 Mar, 01:32, hulahoop wrote:

Unfortunately I suspect that people who believe in DOGS are the same
people who think we enjoy compressed credits so they can advertise
other programmes.

And you'd be wrong.

Not necessarily. *Strictly speaking, you disagree with me. *I think
right and wrong are subjective in this kind of dicussion

No. *You would be _wrong_ to claim the _same_ people want both DOGs
and compressed credits. *I want DOGS but I don't want compressed
credits. *Therefore it cannot be the same group of people who want
both. *(There may be some people who belong to both groups, but that
doesn't change the _fact_ that they are two seperate groups.)

To be fair I did not say that people who dislike DOGS dislike
compressed credits, I think I said (or meant to say) that I suspect
that the people who make the decisions to have DOGS are the same
people who decide that programmes have compressed credits. I agree
it is supposition on my part but I did not mean to say that people who
dislike DOGS dislike compressed credits. Apologies if that was
unclear

Regards

Ged

In article 476ec717-188b-4e6f-8880-
, The Real Zarbiface wrote:
Now where did I say I never watched tv? It's all or nothing with some
of you guys isn't it?
Ever heard of selective viewing? You know; just turn on the tv when
you want to watch a programme and turn it off when it's finished? Or
is that heresy around here? LOL.

Better still, get a machine to watch it for you, then edit out the
adverts, and then watch what's left. Then delete it.

Sometimes I only watch a few minutes before deciding to delete it.
Saves a lot of time.

Rod.

On 15 Mar, 12:41, Kay Robinson wrote:

Switching on to watch a
programme then doing something else instead suggests that you didn't
want to watch it in the first place.

Not at all. It could be a programme that I really want to watch (not
that there are many of them nowadays) but I _also_ want to do
something else too. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't do both at
once if I want to.

An ex-father-in-law of mine used
to switch on, then proceed to read the paper. Of course he only
remembered the odd snippet of what had been on, when shouted loud
enough. However, he WAS a moron.


Or deaf?

"solar penguin" wrote in message
...

On 15 Mar, 08:49, hulahoop wrote:

On Mar 15, 2:47 am, solar penguin
wrote:

On 15 Mar, 01:32, hulahoop wrote:

Unfortunately I suspect that people who believe in DOGS are the same
people who think we enjoy compressed credits so they can advertise
other programmes.

And you'd be wrong.

Not necessarily. Strictly speaking, you disagree with me. I think
right and wrong are subjective in this kind of dicussion

No. You would be _wrong_ to claim the _same_ people want both DOGs
and compressed credits. I want DOGS but I don't want compressed
credits. Therefore it cannot be the same group of people who want
both. (There may be some people who belong to both groups, but that
doesn't change the _fact_ that they are two seperate groups.)


If those responsible for delivering programmes think I need a DOG to
tell me what channel I am on, then I think that they think I am less
intelligent than I am (I think!)

Why? It's _very_ easy to get confused. Here's one real example of a
time when I got muddled up:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....3429dfdeb275ef
or http://tinyurl.com/2lu2ae

The programme had only just started, so I must have seen the BBC1
continuity ident, and heard the announcer say something like "Now on
BBC1, David Tennant on 'Who Do You Think You Are?'" Despite that, I
was somehow convinced I was watching BBC2, and made a fool of myself
in public over it!

Because the episode was repeated on BBC2 during the same week.


I guess that might be something to do with the way I watch telly. I
one of those people who can't give it my full attention. Well,
programmes nowadays are so dumbed down that there's not enough
substance to need your full attention. So I'll be playing with the
cats, or flicking through a book, or checking radw, while the TV is in
the background.

Playing with the cats... Playing with the cats! The hypocrisy.


Under those circumstances, it's very easy to get absent minded.
That's not being "less intelligent". It's just real life. (Of course

It's called being brain dead. Anyone who needs a DOG to tell them what
channel it is has to to.

if you're one of those people who can't multi-task at all, and has to
actually sit down and pay _all_ your attention to the TV in order to
watch it, then things might be a bit different for you.)

On 15 Mar, 16:41, "Agamemnon" wrote:

Playing with the cats... Playing with the cats! The hypocrisy.


Aggy, I know you might find this a bit hard to believe, but it _is_
possible to own pets _without_ fantasising about raping them.