Further correspondence from Channel 4 CEO

NO LOGO wrote:
Hello,

Mr Thompson's email today:

http://logofreetv.org/content/corres...ay.asp?id=6430


Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this link
points to? After all, everyone who visits the page knows what site they're
on and what they're going to be reading. It's an argument you yourself use
to establish the uselessness of TV logos, so I fail to understand why you'd
brand your own subpages in the exact same way you're condemning the TV
companies for.

You're treating your visitors like idiots and behaving like hypocrites.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this link
points to? After all, everyone who visits the page knows what site they're
on and what they're going to be reading. It's an argument you yourself use
to establish the uselessness of TV logos, so I fail to understand why you'd
brand your own subpages in the exact same way you're condemning the TV
companies for.

You're treating your visitors like idiots and behaving like hypocrites.


If you say, NWSY. If you say so.

LOGOFREETV does not operate any TV channels or Interactive Digital TV
services.

The said LOGO is a button, intended to allow users and crawlers to find
their way back up the hierachy to the root page. Without such a link,
newer web users, may not know how to navigate back up.

If you mouse over it, it reacts, and displays the tool tip "home".

The HTML can be edited to remove these LOGOs and the raw database can
also be called. Apart from you, I don't know of anyone having a problem
with this.

LOGOFREETV also provides several XML RSS raw feeds which allows end
users the choice of accessing our content without format data.


http://logofreetv.org/


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this link
points to? After all, everyone who visits the page knows what site they're
on and what they're going to be reading. It's an argument you yourself use
to establish the uselessness of TV logos, so I fail to understand why you'd
brand your own subpages in the exact same way you're condemning the TV
companies for.

You're treating your visitors like idiots and behaving like hypocrites.


If you say, NWSY. If you say so.

LOGOFREETV does not operate any TV channels or Interactive Digital TV
services.

The said LOGO is a button, intended to allow users and crawlers to find
their way back up the hierachy to the root page. Without such a link,
newer web users, may not know how to navigate back up.

If you mouse over it, it reacts, and displays the tool tip "home".

The HTML can be edited to remove these LOGOs and the raw database can
also be called. Apart from you, I don't know of anyone having a problem
with this.

LOGOFREETV also provides several XML RSS raw feeds which allows end
users the choice of accessing our content without format data.


http://logofreetv.org/


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Nick Humphries" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:51:38 +0100, "MC" wrote:


"CW" wrote in message
. com...
uk.media.tv.misc , NO LOGO ,
lgate.org
Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:01:49 +0000 (UTC)

If there was logic behind his arguments he'd have my respect. If he threw
away
the bad arguments he uses he'd have my respect. But as he just rants away
no
matter how wrong his statements are, then why should we not use our own
right
to free speech to tell him that he's talking out of his arse?

Use your free speech to tell us what the bad arguments are and why? Why is
there no logic behind what he has to say? That is how you can use you "free
speech" constructively. Phrases like "...dump
it and cut your losses..." and "...he is talking out of his arse..." are, in
themselves, not logical until you explain why.

World War II was a fight for freedom.

You are so right. My point exactly

Shame on you for not approving us using it.

Shame on you for thinking that I was not

I do not disapprove of anyone having their say. Thats exactly what right we
have as British citizens and that is my point. "No Logo" is fighting for
what he believes in. You, too, have your right to make a counter argument
against him. However, I feel you do not counter argue with relevant points.
You seem just to ridicule him for complaining in the first place. I hope
you do not intend to continue your counter arguments with "bad arguments"
you so accuse No Logo of. If you do not have a counter argument just leave
him to get on with it. Ignore him, killfile him, what ever you like..."the
choice is yours".

Regards

MC

"Nick Humphries" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:51:38 +0100, "MC" wrote:


"CW" wrote in message
. com...
uk.media.tv.misc , NO LOGO ,
lgate.org
Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:01:49 +0000 (UTC)

If there was logic behind his arguments he'd have my respect. If he threw
away
the bad arguments he uses he'd have my respect. But as he just rants away
no
matter how wrong his statements are, then why should we not use our own
right
to free speech to tell him that he's talking out of his arse?

Use your free speech to tell us what the bad arguments are and why? Why is
there no logic behind what he has to say? That is how you can use you "free
speech" constructively. Phrases like "...dump
it and cut your losses..." and "...he is talking out of his arse..." are, in
themselves, not logical until you explain why.

World War II was a fight for freedom.

You are so right. My point exactly

Shame on you for not approving us using it.

Shame on you for thinking that I was not

I do not disapprove of anyone having their say. Thats exactly what right we
have as British citizens and that is my point. "No Logo" is fighting for
what he believes in. You, too, have your right to make a counter argument
against him. However, I feel you do not counter argue with relevant points.
You seem just to ridicule him for complaining in the first place. I hope
you do not intend to continue your counter arguments with "bad arguments"
you so accuse No Logo of. If you do not have a counter argument just leave
him to get on with it. Ignore him, killfile him, what ever you like..."the
choice is yours".

Regards

MC

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:38:28 +0000 (UTC), "loz"
wrote:

I think the best way to perhaps is to focus on the misuse of computers and the
spam angle.
I don't see why my set top box (essentially a computer) should be treated any
differently to my PC.

You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:38:28 +0000 (UTC), "loz"
wrote:

I think the best way to perhaps is to focus on the misuse of computers and the
spam angle.
I don't see why my set top box (essentially a computer) should be treated any
differently to my PC.

You're tuning into a broadcast. When you do that, you must expect to
receive all the parts that form that of that broadcast.

NO LOGO wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page
this link points to? After all, everyone who visits the page knows
what site they're on and what they're going to be reading. It's an
argument you yourself use to establish the uselessness of TV logos,
so I fail to understand why you'd brand your own subpages in the
exact same way you're condemning the TV companies for.

You're treating your visitors like idiots and behaving like
hypocrites.


If you say, NWSY. If you say so.

LOGOFREETV does not operate any TV channels or Interactive Digital TV
services.

The said LOGO is a button, intended to allow users and crawlers to
find their way back up the hierachy to the root page. Without such a
link, newer web users, may not know how to navigate back up.

If you mouse over it, it reacts, and displays the tool tip "home".

The HTML can be edited to remove these LOGOs and the raw database can
also be called. Apart from you, I don't know of anyone having a
problem with this.

LOGOFREETV also provides several XML RSS raw feeds which allows end
users the choice of accessing our content without format data.


http://logofreetv.org/

so you say you have good reasons for cluttering your site with unnecessary
graphics as you believe they serve a purpose for the casual surfer and make
viewing your content a more comfortable experience. You're saying you have
the resources available to do away with those graphics but made the choice
to include them for valid reasons, which I as a casual surfer may not be
aware of, and which you cannot understand anyone complaining about.

The information is also available without accessing your site through a
browser.

It may have occurred to you, but maybe the TV stations have a similar reason
for including red dots and DOGs. Just a thought.

NO LOGO wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page
this link points to? After all, everyone who visits the page knows
what site they're on and what they're going to be reading. It's an
argument you yourself use to establish the uselessness of TV logos,
so I fail to understand why you'd brand your own subpages in the
exact same way you're condemning the TV companies for.

You're treating your visitors like idiots and behaving like
hypocrites.


If you say, NWSY. If you say so.

LOGOFREETV does not operate any TV channels or Interactive Digital TV
services.

The said LOGO is a button, intended to allow users and crawlers to
find their way back up the hierachy to the root page. Without such a
link, newer web users, may not know how to navigate back up.

If you mouse over it, it reacts, and displays the tool tip "home".

The HTML can be edited to remove these LOGOs and the raw database can
also be called. Apart from you, I don't know of anyone having a
problem with this.

LOGOFREETV also provides several XML RSS raw feeds which allows end
users the choice of accessing our content without format data.


http://logofreetv.org/

so you say you have good reasons for cluttering your site with unnecessary
graphics as you believe they serve a purpose for the casual surfer and make
viewing your content a more comfortable experience. You're saying you have
the resources available to do away with those graphics but made the choice
to include them for valid reasons, which I as a casual surfer may not be
aware of, and which you cannot understand anyone complaining about.

The information is also available without accessing your site through a
browser.

It may have occurred to you, but maybe the TV stations have a similar reason
for including red dots and DOGs. Just a thought.

"nwsy" wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this
link points to?

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual content, nor do
they hang around once you scroll down the page.

Bill, dancing.