Another pile of BBC DOG ****

wrote:

That's why they very rarely
show anything that was made more than a few years ago,

? They're busy repeating Dad's Army, Steptoe, 'Allo 'Allo and '60s
episodes of Doctor Who at the moment.

Phil

True, and The Saint, Randall & Hopkirk, The Prisoner, UFO, The
Champions.... so much for that theory then.

On Apr 4, 4:12*pm, ":Jerry:" wrote:
wrote in message

...
snip



You'd have to ask them - I hadn't actually realised the red dot was
optional (though do they still use that?), and I found that more
intrusive than any DOG. I agree that they ought to be optional.

Neither need to be on screen and neither should be an option, anyone
with the slightest intelligence knows what channel they are watching
or knows how to find out just as anyone with the slightest
intelligence knows that extra content/services are often available via
the red button [1] on their remote control devices - if a programme
needs to highlight that their programme will be using such
content/services then a symbol should be used in the EPG.

[1] what does "Press Red" mean to a colour-blind person?...


Train stations really **** me off putting clocks on each platform.
Surely any intelligent person knows what time it is, or knows how to
find out.
I get really ****ed off by all these idiots that need watches on their
wrists, and clocks on their computers, phones, mp3 players, dvd
players, vcrs, car dashboards. Its just pandering to idiots who should
be able to find out the time some other way but are far too lazy to
dial the speaking clock, walk to a nearby church or construct their
own sundial.

--
Mr Maff

wrote:
On 4 Apr, 14:42, Edster wrote:
Sontaranananan wrote:
Edster wrote:
" wrote:
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.
So you would say that a channel that has the name of the show you are
watching, along with its genre, whether it is a repeat or not, and
what day it is, all typed along the top of the screen, is aimed at
intelligent people? Wouldn't intelligent people know all that anyway?
Yes but *it doesn't friggin matter*. Get a life.
Are you saying you don't mind being treated like an idiot?

My feeling is that you'd have to feel very insecure in your own level
of intelligence to care. It's an advertising gimmick; it's not aimed
at saying anything about anyone's intelligence any more than sticking
the word "Mercedes" on the back of a car that plainly has a Mercedes
badge on the front, say.

Phil

Exactly. You summed it up nicely Phil. The DOG was so irrelevant that I
hadn't even thought about it until it was mentioned here months ago, -
and they're still going on about it!

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 4 Apr, 14:42, Edster wrote:
Sontaranananan wrote:
Edster wrote:
" wrote:

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.

So you would say that a channel that has the name of the show you are
watching, along with its genre, whether it is a repeat or not, and
what day it is, all typed along the top of the screen, is aimed at
intelligent people? Wouldn't intelligent people know all that anyway?

Yes but *it doesn't friggin matter*. Get a life.

Are you saying you don't mind being treated like an idiot?

My feeling is that you'd have to feel very insecure in your own level
of intelligence to care. It's an advertising gimmick; it's not aimed
at saying anything about anyone's intelligence any more than sticking
the word "Mercedes" on the back of a car that plainly has a Mercedes
badge on the front, say.

A better analogy would be if the "Mercedes" name was imprinted on the
windscreen right in front of the driver. For some reason I'd bet this
would be against the law and for good reason!

M.

wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr, 16:12, ":Jerry:" wrote:
wrote in message

...
snip



You'd have to ask them - I hadn't actually realised the red dot
was
optional (though do they still use that?), and I found that more
intrusive than any DOG. I agree that they ought to be optional.

Neither need to be on screen and neither should be an option,
anyone
with the slightest intelligence knows what channel they are
watching
or knows how to find out

Anyone with the slightest intelligence knows that a car labelled
"BMW"
is a BMW without having to look at a bloody great badge smeared all
over the bonnet and boot.

Not quite the same, you might have had a point if there was a heads up
display (that could not be switched off) which displayed the make and
model of the vehicle onto the windscreen all the time the engine is
running.

Anyone with the slightest intelligence using
a Windows operating system knows it's Windows without the brand name
sitting in the corner of the display or flashing up during the
startup
routine. Why don't these rouse your ire the same way?

Indeed, why does the OS logo need to be displayed on the taskbar (even
if there might be an argument for a splash screen on start up, think
in terms of multi-tasking in a multi-platform work environment, a
Windows/Linux/Unix PC looks very much the same), it's the same stupid
marketing bull*hit that is used by broadcasters to justify their DOGs.


But for the sake of argument, let's play things your way. Anyone
with
the slightest intelligence knows what channel they're on/how to find
out. But Edster and others contend that the channels using DOGs are
catering to users without the slightest intelligence. I know what
channel I'm watching, but maybe Mr Dim down the road doesn't and
needs
to be told. Why should I hold that against him or the network aiming
to enlighten him?

Perhaps we should forget all we learnt at school then, that way we
will be on the same level as pre-schoolers, or would it be better to
make/encourage the pre-schooler learn, how did people manage back in
the pre-digital age manage?...


Or is this just a spurious way of dressing up good old-fashioned
snobbery?

Or those who justify DOGs dressing up good old dumbing down?...

You don't want to be seen watching programmes that dim
people might also enjoy?

I don't want DOGs on any channel, what ever their target audience, I
suspect that your justification has far more to do with reverse
snobbery...

Well, hate to break it to you but your
presence on this group gives a pretty big hint that you watch at
least
one program that is definitely not pitched towards intellectuals and
that a wide range of stupid people as well as intelligent ones can
and
do enjoy. One of the anti-DOGgers, I think Edster, confessed to
watching Sky One and ITV3, and you're hardly likely to run into
programmes providing you with the latest updates in quantum field
theory or rocket science there either. So have it your way and
believe
that the point of a DOG is not just standard commercial branding but
a
patronising effort to tell people things they'd know if they had any
sense. Then learn to accept that there are people out there without
any sense.

It really doesn't matter what the channel is, if one needs to know
what the channel is then the EPG provides that information, there is
simply no need for DOGs beyond miss directed marketing - it's actually
got nothing what so ever to do with 'users accessibility', if it had,
the DOG would be present thought out the adverts too.


The irony is, it's actually a lot easier to be sympathetic to the
people producing DOGs and argue that they have good reasons if one
accepts your position than it is if one accepts mine that DOGs are
just a marketing gimmick that's spread virally among PR people for
no
other reason than someone once thought it was a clever idea and
everyone else jumped on the bandwagon without thinking.


The only people who are 'without thinking' are those who justify DOGs.

wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr, 16:12, ":Jerry:" wrote:
snip

[1] what does "Press Red" mean to a colour-blind person?...

Same thing as "stop for traffic lights when they turn red" or the
use
of the colour in any other context - they know what red is, it just
appears a different shade to them.


They know it due to it's position, I actually knew a colour-blind
person (friend from school days), he had to be told that the red light
on modern railway (colour light) signals was the bottom light and not
the one at or near the top. The point I was making was, the phrase
"Press Red" is meaningless to those with colour accessibility issues.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:52:27 +0100, Backoffyads
wrote:

Yes I'd rather it wasn't there altogether but it's *not* the big deal
you guys make it out to be. It really isn't. If you want to get vexed
about something turn to a news channel and get angry about real life.

You are right that there are more important things than DOGs, but I
don't think that is an argument in their favour. They are useless &
unnecessary. They distract or annoy some people. Gid rid of them, I
say.

M.

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:52:27 +0100, Backoffyads
wrote:

Yes I'd rather it wasn't there altogether but it's *not* the big deal
you guys make it out to be. It really isn't. If you want to get vexed
about something turn to a news channel and get angry about real life.

You are right that there are more important things than DOGs, but I
don't think that is an argument in their favour. They are useless &
unnecessary. They distract or annoy some people. Gid rid of them, I
say.

M.

Yes I'd rather they weren't there too, but I can't see the point of
people moaning for *months* on a newsgroup about it. Aggy and others
wrote to the BBC. The BBC aren't getting rid of them. That's it. Live
with it.

I appreciate that by saying "live with it" several times I risk being
accused of being as obsessive as the geeks but I'm hoping to help them
understand that the majority of people don't care, so perhaps they
shouldn't worry either. I'm sure that it's because they're so focused
about it that it seems more distracting than it is.

Every time I see a DOG now I immediately think of Aggy getting angry and
seething in some sort of comical clenched teeth Harpo Marx fashion,
which actually adds to the entertainment factor for me. LOL.

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Backoffyads said:
the majority of people don't care,

That's actually as good of an argument against DOGs as any: I've never
spoke to ANYONE who actively likes them:

Some people have an insane hatred of them.
Some people don't like them, but put up with them.
some people don't care.

By using them, broadcasters alienate the first group, irritate the
second, and nothing the 3rd.

By NOT using them they please the first group, and nothing the other 2.


--
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

Edster wrote:
"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? 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.


The brain processes information coming from the ears and eyes. If it
is not determined by brain activity, what is it determined by?

You appear to have misunderstood my question. My brain finds it
easy to filter out unwanted information arriving through my eyes. My
husband's brain finds it easy to filter out unwanted information
arriving through his ears. Why assume that this shows *anything*
about our respective intelligences?

Diane L.