Another pile of BBC DOG ****

In article , Sontaranananan
wrote:
Thing is; the general viewer doesn't give a **** and the fans will buy*
the DVDs anyway so who cares?

The general viewers have probably realised that there isn't any point in
giving a **** because the broadcasters pay no attention to complaints.

And, yes if there's anything I want to see and hear properly I do buy the
DVD, despite the fact that I've already paid to see it through the licence
fee, but in practice very few programmes are worth the money, especially
if I effectively have to buy them twice. That's what I call a ripoff.
Somebody ought to care.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Sontaranananan
wrote:
Thing is; the general viewer doesn't give a **** and the fans will buy
the DVDs anyway so who cares?

The general viewers have probably realised that there isn't any point in
giving a **** because the broadcasters pay no attention to complaints.


No, the average viewer just doesn't bother to send emails to the BBC or
moan on newsgroups.

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
Will Tingle got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. gthy said:
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.

Making a mistake may not be earth shattering, but when the word you use
is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the one you meant to use, you cant cry foul
when people fail to psychically know what you meant.

If you think it _is_ reasonable to expect people to follow you when you
use the wrong words, why not do it all the banana, I'm sure no fish
would find anything tree about cat to burger the video of your bird.

You mean Aggie uses the word "cat" for a multitude of other things?
That would explain a lot.

I can think of a couple of phrases that are commonly used to mean the
opposite of their literal interpretation, and which I would be called a
pedant for pointing out.

"could care less" - see http://andrewjones.250free.com/lesson.jpg

"head over heels" - should be replaced with "arse over tit"

--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.

Happiness will prevail

The Face of Po wrote:

snip
I can think of a couple of phrases that are commonly used to mean the
opposite of their literal interpretation, and which I would be called
a pedant for pointing out.

"could care less" - see http://andrewjones.250free.com/lesson.jpg

"head over heels" - should be replaced with "arse over tit"

I've never understood the phrase "arse backwards". Isn't your arse
*supposed* to be backwards? Arse forward would be a problem.

Diane L.

Sontaranananan wrote:
Edster wrote:

It seems to be people who just have the TV on as background noise and
glance at it now and again who don't see the corporate logos.

Bull****. I switch the tv on only when I want to watch a programme,
then pay attention while it's on, and then turn it off when it's
finished. I can ignore the DOG because I'm intelligent enough to focus on
the
friggin picture instead of being distracted by it like a baby.

Why does everyone seem to think that being bothered/not being
bothered (delete according to preference) by the DOG is a sign of
intelligence? With, of course, their own state of botheredness
equating to high intelligence and the opposite marking people
with the opposite view as cretinous chavs or autistic nerds.

I don't particularly like DOGs but I can easily ignore them. On
the other hand, a car alarm going off two streets away makes it
impossible for me to concentrate while my husband can easily
ignore it (even though he can hear it as well as I can). Neither of
these things show anything about our respective intelligences,
they just show that I'm better at ignoring visual distractions and
he's better at ignoring audible ones.

Diane L.

Sontaranananan wrote:

Edster wrote:


It seems to be people who just have the TV on as background noise and
glance at it now and again who don't see the corporate logos.


Bull****. I switch the tv on only when I want to watch a programme, then
pay attention while it's on, and then turn it off when it's finished. I
can ignore the DOG because I'm intelligent enough to focus on the
friggin picture instead of being distracted by it like a baby.




Some of the US channels have upped the interference factor, and
periodically run a little animated commercial for another show over the
top of the DOG. With sound.

If I had the ability, I'd record one just for Aggy to watch.

Diane L. wrote:
Sontaranananan wrote:
Edster wrote:
It seems to be people who just have the TV on as background noise and
glance at it now and again who don't see the corporate logos.
Bull****. I switch the tv on only when I want to watch a programme,
then pay attention while it's on, and then turn it off when it's
finished. I can ignore the DOG because I'm intelligent enough to focus on
the
friggin picture instead of being distracted by it like a baby.

Why does everyone seem to think that being bothered/not being
bothered (delete according to preference) by the DOG is a sign of
intelligence?

Take no notice of us. We're all excited about Saturday night and we're
just macho posturing because we're all revved up. No I'm a more
intelligent fan than you are, No I'M the most intelligent, No ME! ME!
Look! I've got the tin foil on my screen all ready! Wheeee!



With, of course, their own state of botheredness
equating to high intelligence and the opposite marking people
with the opposite view as cretinous chavs or autistic nerds.

Quite right my dear, quite right. It's all so terribly, terribly uncooth.



I don't particularly like DOGs but I can easily ignore them.

That's cos you is intelligent like what I is.

On
the other hand, a car alarm going off two streets away makes it
impossible for me to concentrate while my husband can easily
ignore it (even though he can hear it as well as I can). Neither of
these things show anything about our respective intelligences,
they just show that I'm better at ignoring visual distractions and
he's better at ignoring audible ones.

Diane L.



No that's just blokeiness. See, car alarms don't bother us. The sound of
technology working means the world is perfect and it lulls us to sleep.

On 3 Apr, 21:08, Sontaranananan wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Sontaranananan
wrote:
Thing is; the general viewer doesn't give a **** and the fans will buy
the DVDs anyway so who cares?

The general viewers have probably realised that there isn't any point in
giving a **** because the broadcasters pay no attention to complaints.

No, the average viewer just doesn't bother to send emails to the BBC or
moan on newsgroups.

Let alone spend money on DVDs just to avoid a logo.

Phil

wrote:
On 3 Apr, 21:08, Sontaranananan wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Sontaranananan
wrote:
Thing is; the general viewer doesn't give a **** and the fans will buy
the DVDs anyway so who cares?
The general viewers have probably realised that there isn't any point in
giving a **** because the broadcasters pay no attention to complaints.
No, the average viewer just doesn't bother to send emails to the BBC or
moan on newsgroups.

Let alone spend money on DVDs just to avoid a logo.

Phil

Yes.

On 3 Apr, 21:27, "Diane L." wrote:
Sontaranananan wrote:
Edster wrote:

It seems to be people who just have the TV on as background noise and
glance at it now and again who don't see the corporate logos.

Bull****. I switch the tv on only when I want to watch a programme,
*then pay attention while it's on, and then turn it off when it's
finished. I can ignore the DOG because I'm intelligent enough to focus on
the
friggin picture instead of being distracted by it like a baby.

Why does everyone seem to think that being bothered/not being
bothered (delete according to preference) by the DOG is a sign of
intelligence?

Everyone doesn't. Only DOG obsessives appear to. I've just turned
Edster's idea on its head for the sake of parody - the point being
that it's possible for anyone to be equally supercilious towards the
camp they're objecting to. The only thing it demonstrates is someone's
need to find an excuse to feel superior to others, nothing at all
about the intelligence quotient of people with different attitudes
towards DOGs.

Phil