Another pile of BBC DOG ****

Agamemnon wrote:

The gay ******* running the BBC did not even address my
request for the DOG to be inserted as a MHEG graphic which can be
switched off by the viewer.

I imagine that this may be a consequence of you sounding like a frothing
maniac. Which of course you are.

--
marc

"If your dog were to mount your cat and penetrate its anus that would
still be rape even if your cat consented to it." -- Aggy

"There are no such things as witches, and homosexuality is a choice of
how to masturbate. -- Aggy"

"I am not sexually attracted to cats. It's not my fault if a cat
points it's arse at me because it thinks I am the dominant male."
-- Aggy.

Agamemnon wrote:

The DOG **** will still be there no matter
what TV I buy.

Get a poop scoop.



The gay ******* running the BBC did not even address my request for
the DOG to be inserted as a MHEG graphic which can be switched off by
the
viewer.

You were hardly giving them great incentive to take you seriously.

They were totally ignoring everything I said so I had to grab their
attention.


Yeah, addressing a BBC employee as a gay tosser is going to win their
respect isn't it. You're just too arrogant and stupid to know how weird
you are.

Edster wrote:
Backoffyads wrote:


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.

I don't know about the others, but R&H and The Champions have both had
bits chopped out of them, presumably because the broadcasters didn't
think the viewers would understand them because there was never
anything worth censoring in either of them.


No, it's because hour tv now has three ad breaks instead of the two that
it had in the sixties, so bits were chopped for time. Not that I agree
with that policy of course.

Edster wrote:


That's because you have been groomed by the children's channels.

Nope. Children's tv didn't have on screen idents in the sixties and
seventies when I was growing up. You must try harder with your pompous
insults.

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


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


An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
" 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. The
things they do to shed their more intelligent viewers go way beyond
just a corporate logo. The reasons for wanting to shed them are
obvious enough for the commercial broadcasters.

Sky One, MTV, Zone Horror, ITV 3...

I hate DOGS as much as the next (sane) man, but BS arguments help
no-one...

Sky 1 and ITV 3 both do it,

This is what I was saying - and both are commercial channels, hence "the
reasons for wanting to shed them are obvious enough for the commercial
broadcasters." is a BS argument.

Sky 1 and ITV 3 both make money from advertising and premium rate
phone lines.

Sky One makes money out of advertising and is therefore a commercial
channel.

Sky One has a dog DOGs

Therefore, the reason to shed DOGs is clearly NOT obvious to the people
who run Sky One.

The same can be said of the other channels I listed.

Therefore the statement that "the reasons for wanting to shed them
[DOGs] are obvious enough for the commercial broadcasters." is not true.

I cannot make it ANY simpler, so lets hope everyone understood this
time...

--
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

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. " said:
Now, then, this is the analogy. Google is a broadcast with DOGs - it's
got taskbars, redundant labelling in the corner of the screen, and a
lot of space that, even when as much of the screen as possible is
being used for work, is not accessible to the user. This is akin to
your complaint that a DOG shrinks viewing space; with its task bars,
brand labels, bars telling me useless information like
'rec.arts.drwho' when I already know where I'm typing, Google shrinks
work space.

Except that you can scroll down past the Google logo.
--
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

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. ":Jerry:" said:

wrote in message
...
snip

Just as well TVs keep getting bigger screens, then, isn't it? I'm
quite happy watching programmes on an iPlayer or YouTube window.

So basically you just want moving smudges, seeing the content is
unimportant to you, no wonder you don't mind DOGs on the TV!

I have when people I generally agree with (DOGs are not good) use
stupid, or extreme arguments - it makes everyone on that side of a
debate look like morons.

It's a bit like 'Britishness' - I'm all for keeping a national identity,
but, thanks to racist nob-ends, you cant say that without looking like a
Nazi.
--
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

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

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point I'm
addressing.
Are you unable to answer my question or just unwilling?


It has everything to do with the point being made, it's just that you
are to stupid to understand.

Unable to answer, then. Fair enough.

Diane L.

wrote in message
...
On 5 Apr, 14:52, ":Jerry:" wrote:
wrote in message

...
snip



Just as well TVs keep getting bigger screens, then, isn't it? I'm
quite happy watching programmes on an iPlayer or YouTube window.

So basically you just want moving smudges, seeing the content is
unimportant to you, no wonder you don't mind DOGs on the TV!

Are you sure you don't need a better pair of glasses? The content is
perfectly clear on my computer screen, even from some distance.
Strangely enough I never had any trouble identifying and following
the
content of TV programmes when I had smaller TV screens either.


If you truly think that YouTube is "perfectly clear" you are the one
with a sight problem not me, either that or a very low expectance of
what high quality is! :~(

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

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point I'm
addressing.
Are you unable to answer my question or just unwilling?


It has everything to do with the point being made, it's just that
you
are to stupid to understand.

Unable to answer, then. Fair enough.


No, you are just to brain dead to understand.