Another pile of BBC DOG ****

On 2 Apr, 14:39, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
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?

DOGs are the brainchild of PR people. Rationality and intelligence
don't factor into the decision-making process. They just do it because
everyone else does, as the first reply Aggy posted made clear.

Who would "tag" a piece of public space and infrastructure?

Anyone who's ever printed a copyright notice on public documents or TV
programmes.

Who
would deliberately flaw something that could be delivered unflawed?

I'll refrain from making a snide comment about RTD's scripts at this
point.

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

They irritate me because they're an unnecessary product of mindless
corporate thinking aimed at "keeping up with the Joneses". That still
doesn't mean I'm going to plan either my life or my viewing habits
around them, either by switching to channels with 'cool' DOGs or
engaging in DOG-avoidance behaviour.

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

In that case you're going to be pretty light on TV viewing with or
without DOGs.

Phil

On 2 Apr, 14:45, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
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.

So, which DOGless channels do you rate more highly than, say, NatGeo?
How many DOGless channels are even left? 2, 4 and 5 can all have
decent content on occasion (even 1 has the odd enjoyable program), but
aside from NHU output and old sitcoms nothing that's generally
superior. The essential point being that DOGlessness is no guide to
quality or the 'intelligence' of either the programmer or the viewer.

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.

TV programs are too basic to watch for the purposes of learning
anything - I don't see that as the point. I watch nature documentaries
to see images of wildlife and places; I tend to know more in advance
than will be revealed by the commentary (and indeed often moan about
what's been left out). Other documentaries I might watch as an
introduction to something I might want to read up on in more detail
later if it catches my interest, to hear interviews with researchers,
or merely because it's more polite to watch TV while eating than to
read a magazine, so saving time.

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

Even if he's a fat uber-intelligent person?

Phil

Anyone who's ever printed a copyright notice on public documents or TV
programmes.



So why doesn't it say Copyright, "no copying", (c)?

Placing a symbol on screen will no more prevent unauthorised copying than
DRM did on DVDs.



And why worry about copyright? It's is often argued the Microsoft gained its
dominant position because people worldwide could easily copy MS products.




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

In that case you're going to be pretty light on TV viewing with or
without DOGs.

Phil

I am very light indeed on my TV viewing.

Light of Aria wrote:



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.

But you still contribute to "DOG **** marred" radw threads because it
still bothers you. Not exactly "moved on" then. ;-)



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.



Just ignore it.

for any of the above channels.

So, which DOGless channels do you rate more highly than, say, NatGeo?
How many DOGless channels are even left? 2, 4 and 5 can all have
decent content on occasion (even 1 has the odd enjoyable program), but
aside from NHU output and old sitcoms nothing that's generally
superior. The essential point being that DOGlessness is no guide to
quality or the 'intelligence' of either the programmer or the viewer.




Beg to differ on that.

However the relationship is indirect.

The market for serving highly intelligent TV viewers is very tiny and not
economically viable, as many people of inteligence, would not be TV viewers
in the first place of any great quantity.

It is well known that the broadcasters target the biggest lowest common
denominator of typically the most profitable demographics to whom they gain
their subscription / licence fee / commercial sponsorship from.



Never the less, the presence of DOG ****, like the presence of grafitti in a
nighbourhood, like the choice of newspaper and books someone carries with
them, is a major if indirect signpost to what the personality and contents
of something is.





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

Even if he's a fat uber-intelligent person?

Phil

"gthy" wrote in message
...
Light of Aria wrote:



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.

But you still contribute to "DOG **** marred" radw threads because it
still bothers you. Not exactly "moved on" then. ;-)




I wasn't aware that posting on newsnet, one's pearls of wisdom, was some
life-long commitment to some ideology or the instant formation of an
unhealthy mental state.

Perhaps you indeed might not be a fan of Dr Who in 10 years time. ;-)



Fine. Do what ever you want. I'd rather the world I live in not be plastered
in graffiti, brand names, adverts, subtle messages, H&S notices, corporate
edicts and emblems, swastikas, etc, at least not unless I can communicate my
own of the same back in equal measure and when and where I wish.

"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...

I do not agree.

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

The BBC is an organisation. The BBC doesn't care. The people who earn their
money from it do. The people who think it's a worthy organisation do.

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, ****wit channel controllers, and spends petty
cash on them.

Of course it is. I'm sure the BBC's Chief Executive is, right now, plotting
the downfall of the company he's in charge of. And all the people who work
for the BBC can't wait to be made redundant.

"Edster" wrote in message
...

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

Rubbish. Intelligent viewers are able to filter out unwanted or unnecessary
information.

I can't say I'm a fan of DOGs but they don't stop me sleeping at night, or
encourage me to stop watching a particular programme or channel. If the BBC
wants to identify their digital channels in this way, fair enough. If a
future review reveals enough people are against it, I'm sure they'll remove
them. In the meantime, it's just a handful of people who are obsessed by
such a minor detail.

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Edster" wrote in message
...

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

Rubbish. Intelligent viewers are able to filter out unwanted or
unnecessary information.

I can't say I'm a fan of DOGs but they don't stop me sleeping at night, or
encourage me to stop watching a particular programme or channel. If the
BBC wants to identify their digital channels in this way, fair enough. If
a future review reveals enough people are against it, I'm sure they'll
remove them. In the meantime, it's just a handful of people who are
obsessed by such a minor detail.



DOGs do not "STOP" me doing anything.

However DOGs cause me to CHOOSE not to watch a channel.

I choose not to watch DOG defaced channels in the same dignified way that I
choose many things in life.

But ultimately, I'm not going to have my tastes, preferences, and
sensitivities dictated by their sort, and I'm not going to fund an
organisation voluntarily that crosses the line of needlessly offending me.



I accept that "my sort" are considered a "minority", that we are
"unimportant" and are a group whom is not important to be served or treated
with the respect others get.

Light of Aria wrote:



I accept that "my sort" are considered a "minority", that we are
"unimportant" and are a group whom is not important to be served or
treated with the respect others get.



And the Jews and gays thought they had it tough. No one appreciates just
how hard life is for you anti-DOG people do they? I'm so moved for you I
feel the need to burst into song. These lyrics are for you baby..

There's a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us.
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us
Somewhere.

There's a time for us,
Some day a time for us,
Time together with time spare,
Time to learn, time to care,
Some day!

Somewhere.
We'll find a new way of living,
We'll find a way of forgiving
Somewhere . . .

There's a place for us,
A time and place for us.
Hold my hand and we're halfway there.
Hold my hand and I'll take you there
Somehow,
Some day,
Somewhere!