Another pile of BBC DOG ****

"Diane L." wrote in message
...

snip 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?


It doesn't, but peoples welcoming/acceptance of lowering standards
does, when you are filtering out all the content that arrives what
will there be left to watch/hear - of course you might just not care
what is broadcast so long as something flickers on that screen between
your arm chairs and the wall?

On 4 Apr, 17:15, Mark wrote:
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.

No, that would be a considerably worse analogy because it would
plainly affect performance for anyone driving. Clearly this is not the
case with DOGs since, as this thread amply demonstrates, there are a
great many people whose enjoyment is affected not one jot and who are
not in any way disadvantaged by the presence of DOGs. Hence the
Mercedes analogy - there's nothing but an issue of personal preference
at stake.

Phil

On 4 Apr, 17:04, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:01:09 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
I'm wondering if your observation skills are especially poor, as
you've apparently missed important details in my above comment. Your
amusingly misjudged efforts to patronise notwithstanding, it is
possible to watch programs without noticing any difference in quality
from the presence of DOGs, while still being fully aware that they
exist in the corner, as inded I pointed out above. It's not a question
of not knowing the DOG's there, it's a question of using the inbuilt
perception filter most people possess to filter out such an irrelevant
detail while watching the program.

I disagree. *DOGs can sometimes obscure faces

Even with the BBC3 DOG, that would have to be a very small face...

and other important
parts of the screen. *I find this as irritating as bad camera work.

Just because you don't mind the DOGs does not mean that everyone else
will.

Nor am I suggesting otherwise - I haven't been conflating a subjective
dislike with, say, an objective safety hazard like plastering logos
all over windscreens. My point is merely that such dislike is just
that - there's no objective reason for it, no rationality behind
strong feeling about DOGs either way, and certainly no kudos to be
gained from blurting how much you hate DOGs across internet forums in
the bizarre belief that this is somehow either a mark of intelligence
or a badge of pride.

Phil

wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr, 17:15, Mark wrote:
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.

No, that would be a considerably worse analogy because it would
plainly affect performance for anyone driving. Clearly this is not
the
case with DOGs since, as this thread amply demonstrates, there are a
great many people whose enjoyment is affected not one jot and who
are
not in any way disadvantaged by the presence of DOGs. Hence the
Mercedes analogy - there's nothing but an issue of personal
preference
at stake.


Rubbish, many people drive around which unwashed windscreens or stuff
sitting on the dashboard that reflects back onto the screen but that
doesn't mean their standards of driving have not been affected - I
would even suggest that it most certainly does get affected in certain
situations (such as when the sun reflects off the dirt etc.), just as
a DOG on a TV screen can interfere with what is happening on-screen.
Actually if one only ever watches newly made programming, stuff made
within the last 5 or so years, the DOG rarely blocks on-screen event
but older stuff often has action in the corners and edges, especially
if the programme has suffered that other abortion, ARC - why can't
programmes made as 4:3 be screened as 4:3?!

On 4 Apr, 17:16, ":Jerry:" wrote:
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.

See my reply to Mark. In fact from the driver's perspective the
Mercedes logo on the front will be visible obscuring a small part of
the field of view, so the analogy as I phrased it is almost exact with
this make of car (less so with most others, which don't use pop-up
metal logos on the bonnet). There may even be drivers who become so
fixated on the badge in their field of view that they're distracted
from the road, and yet the majority have no trouble ignoring that
particular piece of information.

The morale of the story being that people who can't ignore DOGs
probably shouldn't drive Mercedes...

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.

And yet, until I raised the issue no one thought to object to it. I've
never even heard of a crusade to remove the Windows logo from the
start menu. The reason being that this sort of branding has been in
circulation for so long no one thinks about it, but put exactly the
same thing on a TV screen and it seems new, something for the latest
generation of people with a penchant for mindless reaction to throw a
fit about. It's a brand label, get over it.

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

Ah, so forcing Mr Dim to work out how to identify which channel he's
on is now a valuable real-world learning experience, is it?

, how did people manage back in
the pre-digital age manage?...

Same way people managed to make toast before there were toasters,
probably. Luddism went out of fashion a century ago and "doing things
this way because we've always done them this way" has never been a
sound argument.

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?...

Once again point to someone on this thread who's made any effort to
"justify" DOGs. Why do people want the world to be so black and white
that an admonition "calm down dear, it's a commercial" somehow equates
with praising said commercials?

*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's no need for a car labelled "Mercedes" to have the Mercedes
logo on the bonnet, and the grill, and the boot, and the name next to
it either. It may have Mercedes logos carved into the hubs as well.
For goodness sake, if you're looking at the car from outside you're
faced with two things telling you what make it is from any angle you
choose - if you're inside you presumably know what you're driving
without having the logo visible on the bonnet. And yet the same car
will always have at least four things telling you what it is in
different ways.

DOGs have nothing to do with needing to know anything, or imagining
people don't have/can't access the information, any more than the
convention among car manufacturers to have 4-8 brand labels on each
vehicle they produce. It's just one more for the list; you can work
out what channel you're on by looking at the info bar, or when the
channel ID flashes up as you switch channels on terrestrial, or with a
DOG. It's entirely unnecessary redundancy, but if you don't get worked
up by computer screens with a couple of brand labels or cars with
multiple idents, why make a fuss about TV slavishly following the same
conventions?

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.-

Mindless reaction against something is as thoughtless as mindless
adherence to it. We just live in a society where people have somehow
been conditioned to think that reacting against something is
inherently a mark of intelligence or independent thought, regardless
of whether in actuality such reaction demonstrates only a lack of
either.

Phil

On 4 Apr, 17:22, 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.

The point is, no one *needs* to make arguments in their favour, and no
one has been doing so. They aren't important enough an issue to
warrant either strident attack or defence.

Phil

On 4 Apr, 18:30, ":Jerry:" wrote:
"Diane L." wrote in message

...

snip 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?

It doesn't, but peoples welcoming/acceptance of lowering standards
does,

Even if this were granted, you're still relying on arguing from your
conclusion. You're assuming that your subjective judgment that DOGs
reflect lowering standards is something objectively correct, which is
not in fact the case. Nor is it in any case the case that accepting/
ignoring DOGs in some way impairs critical faculties - if you look at
my reviews here, for example, you'll be aware that I can be as
strident as anyone in tearing apart stories that don't stand up to
scrutiny and objecting to perceived poor quality. This is in no way
incompatible with regarding DOGs as a needless but acceptable bit of
screen junk. There are plenty of things I like less than DOGs that are
a pervasive feature of television. I don't like wasting time with
extensive commercials saying "You are watching BBC2" or whatever (in
fact I'd rather have a DOG noting which channel it is than anything
that actually consumes additional time). I can't stand advert breaks,
but that doesn't mean I boycott commercial channels.

Phil

:Jerry: wrote:
"Diane L." wrote in message
...

snip 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?


It doesn't, but peoples welcoming/acceptance of lowering standards
does, when you are filterin ug out all the content that arrives what
will there be left to watch/hear -

It's not the *content* I'm filtering - it's the extraneous DOG in the top
corner. If there's no content that I want to watch, I don't watch.

of course you might just not care
what is broadcast so long as something flickers on that screen between
your arm chairs and the wall?

Again, why this need to assume that anyone who isn't as upset by
the DOG as you are isn't really paying attention? Does it just make
you feel superior or do you genuinely believe that it's not possible
for someone else to watch a programme without experiencing it in
exactly the same that way that you do?

Diane L.

In article , Backoffyads wrote:
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.

Don't you think it matters that we have a public broadcasting service
which is paid for by the public but doesn't listen to the public?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Backoffyads wrote:
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.

Don't you think it matters that we have a public broadcasting service
which is paid for by the public but doesn't listen to the public?

Rod.



I think it's right and proper that they don't listen to cranks.