Another pile of BBC DOG ****

On 2 Apr, 18:25, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
"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.

So no doubt you appreciate the options advertisers are giving you by
enabling you to CHOOSE not to watch more and more channels because
more and more have DOGs attached? You're dabbling in semantics, while
allowing your viewing habits to be dictated by a knee-jerk reaction.

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

Says it all, doesn't it? A decision "not to watch DOG defaced
channels" is dignified - nay, more than that, it's such a badge of
pride that it bears exposing to the masses on Usenet for their
adulation and wonder at your capacity for freely CHOOSING to restrict
your viewing habits to BBC2 and Channel 4.

You've never considered learning to take yourself (and the world
around you) just a LITTLE less seriously, I take it?

But ultimately, I'm not going to have my tastes, preferences, and
sensitivities dictated by their sort,

Except that that's precisely what you are doing. A reaction against
something is every bit a response to advertising pressure as caving
into it. I freely CHOOSE to watch a particular programme every time I
turn on the telly, based entirely on whether or not the content seems
enjoyable or interesting, as do most people. You, by contrast, allow
the advertisers to tell you exactly what you won't watch, regardless
of whether or not you might enjoy the content, merely by sticking a
logo on the screen.

and I'm not going to fund an
organisation voluntarily that crosses the line of needlessly offending me.

Well, since funding the BBC is compulsory, you can happily watch BBC3
and BBC4 in the comforting knowledge that they're getting no more
money from you than they would if you confined your viewing to BBC2.

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.

Un-PC as it may seem to say it, sometimes 'minorities' don't get
treated with respect by virtue of the fact that they don't deserve it.
You see your reaction as dignified, I'm sure - to me and I imagine to
others reading, this post comes off as merely petulant. One earns
respect by treating others accordingly - and that includes the
advertisers and programme-makers. Why on Earth should the BBC respect
or pay attention to those who plainly reject its own arguments for
'DOGGING' out of hand with the response "But I don't *WANT* DOGS!", or
those who don't exhibit the maturity to live with a decision they
don't like once it's been made?

Granted, my own position is that the BBC's stance on DOGS is unworthy
of much respect because it's the product of a corporate herd mentality
that would rather do what every other network is dong than conduct
market research to see whether DOGs are likely to achieve their
desired effect. But that being the case, I accept that it would be
unreasonable for me to complain to the BBC telling them I think
they're a bunch of cretinous sheep (or loudly proclaim the same on
Usenet) and then stamp my foot demanding that they treat me with
respect.

Phil

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. gthy said:
Edster wrote:

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

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

What, despite them meaning completely different things?
--
The more I see of my dickhead half brother...
....the more I think Cain was onto somthing!

Will Tingle
Remove YOUR.PANTS to e-mail

On 2 Apr, 19:26, Will Tingle
wrote:
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. gthy said:

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

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

What, despite them meaning completely different things?

Ah, so this is why Agamemnon goes wrong so often - we keeping picking
up on his misuse of English on the numerous occasions he uses words in
a completely different way from what he actually means because we're
too pedantic!

Phil

"Bazza" wrote in message
...

"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.

You need to switch the light off for it to work effectively.


Baz

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. " said:
On 2 Apr, 19:26, Will Tingle
wrote:
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. gthy said:

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

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

What, despite them meaning completely different things?

Ah, so this is why Agamemnon goes wrong so often - we keeping picking
up on his misuse of English on the numerous occasions he uses words in
a completely different way from what he actually means because we're
too pedantic!

Am I way more tired than I feel, or did I miss something?

http://www.answers.com/opaque&r=67
o·paque (o-pak')
adj.
Impenetrable by light; neither transparent nor translucent.



--
The more I see of my dickhead half brother...
....the more I think Cain was onto somthing!

Will Tingle
Remove YOUR.PANTS to e-mail

Will Tingle wrote:
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. gthy said:
Edster wrote:

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

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

What, despite them meaning completely different things?

Yes. Some people make mistakes like that. Earth-shattering, I know.

Agamemnon wrote:

"Bazza" wrote in message
...

"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.

You need to switch the light off for it to work effectively.


You've had your lights switched off for years haven't you Angrymadman?

wrote:
On 2 Apr, 18:25, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
"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.

So no doubt you appreciate the options advertisers are giving you by
enabling you to CHOOSE not to watch more and more channels because
more and more have DOGs attached? You're dabbling in semantics, while
allowing your viewing habits to be dictated by a knee-jerk reaction.

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

Says it all, doesn't it? A decision "not to watch DOG defaced
channels" is dignified - nay, more than that, it's such a badge of
pride that it bears exposing to the masses on Usenet for their
adulation and wonder at your capacity for freely CHOOSING to restrict
your viewing habits to BBC2 and Channel 4.

You've never considered learning to take yourself (and the world
around you) just a LITTLE less seriously, I take it?

But ultimately, I'm not going to have my tastes, preferences, and
sensitivities dictated by their sort,

Except that that's precisely what you are doing. A reaction against
something is every bit a response to advertising pressure as caving
into it. I freely CHOOSE to watch a particular programme every time I
turn on the telly, based entirely on whether or not the content seems
enjoyable or interesting, as do most people. You, by contrast, allow
the advertisers to tell you exactly what you won't watch, regardless
of whether or not you might enjoy the content, merely by sticking a
logo on the screen.

and I'm not going to fund an
organisation voluntarily that crosses the line of needlessly offending me.

Well, since funding the BBC is compulsory, you can happily watch BBC3
and BBC4 in the comforting knowledge that they're getting no more
money from you than they would if you confined your viewing to BBC2.

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.

Un-PC as it may seem to say it, sometimes 'minorities' don't get
treated with respect by virtue of the fact that they don't deserve it.
You see your reaction as dignified, I'm sure - to me and I imagine to
others reading, this post comes off as merely petulant. One earns
respect by treating others accordingly - and that includes the
advertisers and programme-makers. Why on Earth should the BBC respect
or pay attention to those who plainly reject its own arguments for
'DOGGING' out of hand with the response "But I don't *WANT* DOGS!", or
those who don't exhibit the maturity to live with a decision they
don't like once it's been made?



When I read the anti-DOG tirades I imagine them being said in a nerdy
voice. It makes them sound more amusing.

On Apr 2, 8:21*pm, gthy wrote:


When I read the anti-DOG tirades I imagine them being said in a nerdy
voice. It makes them sound more amusing.

You're right. Picture a person with dark unkempt hair, wearing 1970's
NHS glasses, possibly held together with a sticking plaster at the
front, a green anorak and canvas rucksack containing a tartan thermos
flask and a nasty tupperware sandwich box

If that describes too many people here I do apologise

Regards

Ged

hulahoop wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:21 pm, gthy wrote:

When I read the anti-DOG tirades I imagine them being said in a nerdy
voice. It makes them sound more amusing.

You're right. Picture a person with dark unkempt hair, wearing 1970's
NHS glasses, possibly held together with a sticking plaster at the
front, a green anorak and canvas rucksack containing a tartan thermos
flask and a nasty tupperware sandwich box

If that describes too many people here I do apologise

Regards

Ged


And who stops his glasses slipping down by doing that geeky twitch with
his face.