Another pile of BBC DOG ****

On 2 Apr, 19:49, Will Tingle
wrote:
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?

If you pay much attention to Aggy's posts, you'll notice a habit of
regularly and egregiously misusing the English language, especially
when it comes to subjects in which he professes expertise. But as I
say. maybe demanding that he use the language in the same way as the
rest of the English-speaking world is excessively pedantic.

Phil

gthy wrote:
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.

Like your mother did giving birth to you.

The message
from Edster contains these words:

====big snip====

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.

TBH, I'd have said it was for the benefit of people who _haven't_ lost
their remote control. :-)

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
On 2 Apr, 18:25, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
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 [...]

No it isn't. The people without TV receiving equipment don't have to
fund the BBC, and LoA, who has already said "I don't do TV licenses",
could well be one of them.

--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.

Happiness will prevail

"The Face of Po" wrote in message
...
I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
On 2 Apr, 18:25, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
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 [...]

No it isn't. The people without TV receiving equipment don't have to
fund the BBC, and LoA, who has already said "I don't do TV licenses",
could well be one of them.

If he doesn't do TV licenses, then why's he contributing to a thread about
DOGs? Why does he state that "DOG-**** free channels is all I need and all I
have time for!" It kind of implies that he watches television. If he watches
DOG-free channels but doesn't own a TV license, he's still breaking the law.
Unless, of course, he doesn't need to because he lives with his parents and
relies on their license instead...

Stephen Wilson wrote:
"The Face of Po" wrote in message
...
I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
On 2 Apr, 18:25, "Light of Aria"
wrote:
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 [...]
No it isn't. The people without TV receiving equipment don't have to
fund the BBC, and LoA, who has already said "I don't do TV licenses",
could well be one of them.

If he doesn't do TV licenses, then why's he contributing to a thread about
DOGs? Why does he state that "DOG-**** free channels is all I need and all I
have time for!" It kind of implies that he watches television. If he watches
DOG-free channels but doesn't own a TV license, he's still breaking the law.
Unless, of course, he doesn't need to because he lives with his parents and
relies on their license instead...




IMBECELIC IMBECILE JUVENILE SCHOOLGIRL LESBIAN FOOL! GET YOURSELF AN
ALSATION, er I mean AN EDUCATION! I'M GOING TO SEND DOG **** TO THE BBC!
DOWN WITH DOGS! UP WITH CATS!

"gthy" wrote in message
...
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?

Get stuffed Zarbi**** you immature juvenile delinquent.

On 3 Apr, 00:55, "Stephen Wilson"
wrote:
"The Face of Po" wrote in . net...

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
*On 2 Apr, 18:25, "Light of Aria"
*wrote:
* 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 [...]

No it isn't. *The people without TV receiving equipment don't have to
fund the BBC, and LoA, who has already said "I don't do TV licenses",
could well be one of them.

If he doesn't do TV licenses, then why's he contributing to a thread about
DOGs? Why does he state that "DOG-**** free channels is all I need and all I
have time for!"

Precisely. He implies he watches some television (and wait, isn't he
on a group dedicated to a TV show), suggesting he either has a TV and
so is obliged to pay licence fees, or gets his TV online in which case
he's not actually funding the BBC anyway whatever channel he watches.

Phil

In article , The
Face of Po wrote:
*Well, since funding the BBC is compulsory [...]

No it isn't.

It is if you watch broadcast television - any broadcast
television - which applies to nearly everybody.

It's a bit like having to pay a fee to Tesco in order to be
allowed to shop in Sainsburys - or anywhere else. The fee would
be enough to provide Tesco's entire income so that they
wouldn't actually have to sell anything to stay in business,
though they might supplement it by selling a few items. I
wonder what sort of quality we could expect in those items, and
how competitively priced they might be?

Rod.

On 3 Apr, 10:26, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , The

Face of Po wrote:
*Well, since funding the BBC is compulsory [...]

No it isn't.

It is if you watch broadcast television - any broadcast
television - which applies to nearly everybody.

It's a bit like having to pay a fee to Tesco in order to be
allowed to shop in Sainsburys - or anywhere else. The fee would
be enough to provide Tesco's entire income so that they
wouldn't actually have to sell anything to stay in business,
though they might supplement it by selling a few items. I
wonder what sort of quality we could expect in those items, and
how competitively priced they might be?

Rod.

In fairness, the BBC operates a partial internal market system that,
at least in principle, promotes quality (or at least popular), by
allocating money to directors and shows based on the viewing figures
they get, their prospects in the export market and the record of
individual producers.

Phil