Another pile of BBC DOG ****

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:35:08 +0100, notthebbc
wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:



The only conclusion that can be drawn from this reply is that the
BBC intends to ignore its viewers demands and refuses to remove the
DOG **** from our screens and has no answers to my questions about
the justification of the DOG **** in the first place .

No, the only conclusion is that you're a freakin' *crank* and the BBC
are bored with you. You must accept that your behaviour is weird.
Once you've accepted that you'll start to find ways to improve and
have better mental health.



The solution
therefore is not to watch and of the BBC's DOG **** infested
channels ever again unless the DOG **** is removed.


Do that. Please Ags, *do that*. Which will mean that you won't be
here continually moaning about the company idents. Seriously, your
tantrums over such a trivial little thing are not healthy for you.
Move on.

I must be prone to tantrums as well over that "trivial little thing"
because I have completely stopped watching channels with DOG. I just
can't stand DOG's and the only way to avoid them is to not watch the
channels.

It's a pity five reintroduced the DOG, I haven't watched it since. I didn't
realise I was having a tantrum.

On 2 Apr, 12:14, Edster wrote:
" wrote:
On 2 Apr, 00:34, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message

...

"notthebbc" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this reply is that the BBC
intends to ignore its viewers demands and refuses to remove the DOG ****
from our screens and has no answers to my questions about the
justification of the DOG **** in the first place .

No, the only conclusion is that you're a freakin' *crank* and the BBC are
bored with you. You must accept that your behaviour is weird. Once you've
accepted that you'll start to find ways to improve and have better mental
health.

POPPYCOCK! The BBC coplaints department is unable to justify and unwilling
to change its position so there is no point in viewers discussing it with
them any further. Direct action is the next step for viewers to take.
Forget BBC complaints. *Direct letters to programme makers and to high
ranking BBC management and a concerted campaign to boycott DOGed channels
and hit them where it hurts in the ratings is what is now required.

The solution therefore is not to watch and of the BBC's DOG **** infested
channels ever again unless the DOG **** is removed.

Do that. Please Ags, *do that*. Which will mean that you won't be here
continually moaning about the company idents. Seriously, your tantrums
over such a trivial little thing are not healthy for you. Move on.

FOOL!

I do not agree.

You assume that the BBC is a rational corporation run by sane people or that
the BBC "cares" about ratings.

No one needs to assume anything about the BBC to find their response
to Aggy's fits eminently reasonable - he sent in a complaint, they
explained their position, and note that they've acknowledged his
complaint and that nothing further can be gained by subsequent rants
on the same subject. Wouldn't you get a bit tired of it if you
explained your position only to have the same rant repeated over and
over?

They didn't explain anything, they just lied about what they do and
what thier motivations for doing it are. They said the logo was small
and transparent when it is large and opaque. They said they removed
the logo during films and drama when they do not remove it during
films and drama. They said their reason for putting it on was to
compete with other channels when they are public funded and have no
need to compete with anyone.



I do not believe this to be the case nor do I believe the BBC really wants
its digital channels to have equal status to its "original" channels. It
does not actually want BBC 3 or Flaw to succeed, IMHO. This is also why it
chooses **** programmes,

By this logic, they must want BBC1 to fail. Why on Earth spend money
on something with the objective of making it fail? No one forced them
to make BBC3 in the first place.

Phil

BBC1 seems to be the only channel they want people to watch. 3 and 4
both have on-screen grafitti

Along with most other channels out there - gee, all these TV companies
desperate for people to avoid their programming.

to put off intelligent viewers,

Surely it's the intelligent ones who are able to pay attention to the
program without being distracted by the pretty graphic in the corner,
and for that matter who rate a programme's value by its content rather
than kneejerk reactions to bad advertising techniques. It's
reactionary viewers who are likely to be put off, not intelligent
ones.

and 2 has
on screen advertising near the end of programmes that is obviously
designed for the benefit of people who have lost their remote control.-

Doesn't BBC1 have that?

Phil

On 2 Apr, 12:14, Edster wrote:
" wrote:
On 1 Apr, 23:37, Edster wrote:
notthebbc wrote:
Agamemnon wrote:

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this reply is that the BBC
intends to ignore its viewers demands and refuses to remove the DOG ****
from our screens and has no answers to my questions about the
justification of the DOG **** in the first place .

No, the only conclusion is that you're a freakin' *crank* and the BBC
are bored with you. You must accept that your behaviour is weird. Once
you've accepted that you'll start to find ways to improve and have
better mental health.

The solution
therefore is not to watch and of the BBC's DOG **** infested channels
ever again unless the DOG **** is removed.

Do that. Please Ags, *do that*. Which will mean that you won't be here
continually moaning about the company idents. Seriously, your tantrums
over such a trivial little thing are not healthy for you. Move on.

Presumably you are about 12 years old at the most, and you've grown up
seeing ****e all over the screen on your cartoon channels.

I think the first channel to do onscreen logos was MTV from its launch
in the early 90s, which was aimed at teens. So anyone young enough to
have been listening to early '90s pop would have grown up with this
stuff. Hence even if your bizarre logic held, it could apply to people
well into their 20s if not older.

Phil

People in their 20s would be used to watching grown up TV by now.

Oh, I don't know. I hear a lot of people watch, say, Doctor Who well
into their adult life.

They
would have grown out of their teenypop stage long before.

Which is relevant to what, precisely? Your claim was that people would
be inured to the logos by long exposure as kids - anyone who watched
MTV as a kid in the 90s would know what to expect and would have
learned to tune the logo out, regardless of what they later went onto
watch. And since most of the Sky channels have had these sorts of logo
since their inception as well, the exposure would likely have
continued after they grew out of MTV.

Unless you regard it as a mark of intelligence to prefer, say, ITV and
BBC1 to National Geographic and the History Channel.

Phil

wrote:


Surely it's the intelligent ones who are able to pay attention to the
program without being distracted by the pretty graphic in the corner,
and for that matter who rate a programme's value by its content rather
than kneejerk reactions to bad advertising techniques. It's
reactionary viewers who are likely to be put off, not intelligent
ones.


Spot on! There's a theory that some fan obsessives are autistic. Their
inability to ignore the DOG would suggest that theory has some merit.

Edster wrote:


They didn't explain anything, they just lied about what they do and
what thier motivations for doing it are.

Did they? Let's see....


They said the logo was small
and transparent when it is large and opaque.

Pedantry. Some people say "transparent" when they mean "opaque".


They said they removed
the logo during films and drama when they do not remove it during
films and drama.

Pedantry. Some BBC Three films do not carry the DOG.


They said their reason for putting it on was to
compete with other channels when they are public funded and have no
need to compete with anyone.


They need to compete in order to be seen to be a relevant tv company.
Otherwise they may lose the right to be public funded and become yet
another advertisement-based company, thus making their output even more
dumbed down than it already is.

I can appreciate the DOG is a *little* bit annoying but it's easily
ignored once you "get into" the programme. What you guys have to
understand is that your rants to the BBC and on here are making you look
like cranks and obsessives. Step back a little and try and consider how
your behaviour might look to others. Calm down and try to focus on the
programme itself instead of on the little graphic in the corner. You can
block out the furniture and wallpaper and other "distractions" in your
living room/basement when you watch a programme so I'm sure you, like
many of us, can block out the "DOG". Give it a try. Good luck.

"gthy" wrote in message
...
Edster wrote:


They didn't explain anything, they just lied about what they do and
what thier motivations for doing it are.

Did they? Let's see....


They said the logo was small
and transparent when it is large and opaque.

Pedantry. Some people say "transparent" when they mean "opaque".


They said they removed
the logo during films and drama when they do not remove it during
films and drama.

Pedantry. Some BBC Three films do not carry the DOG.


They said their reason for putting it on was to
compete with other channels when they are public funded and have no
need to compete with anyone.

They need to compete in order to be seen to be a relevant tv company.
Otherwise they may lose the right to be public funded and become yet
another advertisement-based company, thus making their output even more
dumbed down than it already is.

I can appreciate the DOG is a *little* bit annoying but it's easily
ignored once you "get into" the programme. What you guys have to
understand is that your rants to the BBC and on here are making you look
like cranks and obsessives. Step back a little and try and consider how
your behaviour might look to others. Calm down and try to focus on the
programme itself instead of on the little graphic in the corner. You can
block out the furniture and wallpaper and other "distractions" in your
living room/basement when you watch a programme so I'm sure you, like many
of us, can block out the "DOG". Give it a try. Good luck.

I tried your suggestion and stuck a piece of silver tinfoil over the DOG
whilst watching last night. Believe me it was actually MORE of a distraction
so your theory doesn't hold any water I'm afraid.

Baz

"Stephen Wolstenholme" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:35:08 +0100, notthebbc
wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:



The only conclusion that can be drawn from this reply is that the BBC
intends to ignore its viewers demands and refuses to remove the DOG ****
from our screens and has no answers to my questions about the
justification of the DOG **** in the first place .

No, the only conclusion is that you're a freakin' *crank* and the BBC
are bored with you. You must accept that your behaviour is weird. Once
you've accepted that you'll start to find ways to improve and have
better mental health.



The solution
therefore is not to watch and of the BBC's DOG **** infested channels
ever again unless the DOG **** is removed.


Do that. Please Ags, *do that*. Which will mean that you won't be here
continually moaning about the company idents. Seriously, your tantrums
over such a trivial little thing are not healthy for you. Move on.

I must be prone to tantrums as well over that "trivial little thing"
because I have completely stopped watching channels with DOG. I just
can't stand DOG's and the only way to avoid them is to not watch the
channels.


DOGs are self advertisements for TV channels. Self advertisements are
included in the time allowed for adverts on commercial channels per hour.
How on earth can Ofcom allow DOGs to be broadcast for the current 48 minutes
per hour where the maximum for all adverts is still 12 minutes pre hour?
The same principle must surely apply to the BBC DOG polluted channels who
are not supposed to carry volume advertising in any form.

Rather than having a go at Aggy, to which I would not normally object, have
a go at Ofcom and point out the flagrant breaches that are being allowed
unchecked by the display of DOGs throughout so many programmes and channels.

Richard

I can appreciate the DOG is a *little* bit annoying but it's easily
ignored once you "get into" the programme. What you guys have to
understand is that your rants to the BBC and on here are making you look
like cranks and obsessives. Step back a little and try and consider how
your behaviour might look to others. Calm down and try to focus on the
programme itself instead of on the little graphic in the corner. You can
block out the furniture and wallpaper and other "distractions" in your
living room/basement when you watch a programme so I'm sure you, like many
of us, can block out the "DOG". Give it a try. Good luck.



Let's analyse this behaviour indeed.

Who would rationally and intelligently knowing deface a film or visual
production? Who would "tag" a piece of public space and infrastructure? Who
would deliberately flaw something that could be delivered unflawed?

DOGs annoy the hell out of me because they are inane, the behaviour of
vandals and hooligans, and entirely unnecessary.

I have learnt to move on: I don't do DOG **** marred TV. I don't do DOG ****
marred subscription channels. I don't do DOG **** marred state broadcasters,
TV licences, free channels nor even free downloads.

You tolerate an organisation taking the **** if you want to, but I will not.

Only broadcasters of dignity, taste, quality, and intelligence need apply
here, thank you.

Unless you regard it as a mark of intelligence to prefer, say, ITV and
BBC1 to National Geographic and the History Channel.

Phil


I don't have a high regard for any of the above channels. If you want to
learn something read books, newspapers, encyclopedias, and the Internet. You
are very limited in what you learn and understand just by sitting there with
your thumb up your arse watching the exciting pictures some TV editor
decides to calve up and throw up at you.

And please don't get me started on "mood noise" and "docu-drama" that the
even more dumbed down than when Dyke dumbed it down BBC now days excretes.

You show me an uber-intelligent person, and I'll wager he watches less TV
than a typical fat thick person.

DOG-**** free channels is all I need and all I have time for!

Rather than having a go at Aggy, to which I would not normally object,
have
a go at Ofcom and point out the flagrant breaches that are being allowed
unchecked by the display of DOGs throughout so many programmes and
channels.

Richard






Because it's easier to attack Aggy (wrongly) than for Broadcasting ****s to
defend an indefensible, flawed, and irrational policy that was imposed
without public debate and without proper accountability to the public.