The BBC  permalink

DOGs

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 101 - 150 of 5132
  • Message 101

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, I would really appreciate your comments on the points I raised in Post No 37.

    I was once a member of the Antilogo group LOGOFREETV, which has now sadly been wound up, because broadcasters are very powerful and know they can ignore our views and there is very little we can do about it. However all the research carried out by that group discovered the three groups into which nearly everyone falls.

    So I will ask again, for whose benefit are they, they certainly don't help any goup of viewers I know to exist.

    Report message1

  • Message 102

    , in reply to message 101.

    Posted by GaryB007 (U3895241) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Message posted by LogoHater
    So I will ask again, for whose benefit are they, they certainly don't help any goup of viewers I know to exist. 


    Maybe the brainless chavs that make up the cannon fodder for programmes such as Jeremy Kyle. Most of them also don't seem to be able to work out that having unprotected sex causes babies.

    I wonder if this is the level at which BBC programmes are now aimed?

    Report message2

  • Message 103

    , in reply to message 93.

    Posted by Devon_Rex (U8846278) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Absolutely right! Ridiculous isn't it. smiley - laugh

    Report message3

  • Message 104

    , in reply to message 103.

    Posted by Monty Burns (U7868864) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Most people watch programmes, not channels. They choose the programmes from whatever source they have available to them.
     


    I use the Sky planner on Saturday morning and check the weeks viewing on a good number of channels.I select what I think I will enjoy,whether it's on BBC,ITV,History,Nat Geographic,Sky Travel,Discovery,TCM etc etc.I have no particular loyalty to any channel.I simply make my OWN choice.I'm a big boy now you know!! smiley - winkeye

    Report message4

  • Message 105

    , in reply to message 102.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    <quote> Message posted by LogoHater
    So I will ask again, for whose benefit are they, they certainly don't help any goup of viewers I know to exist.
    Quoted from this message





    Maybe the brainless chavs that make up the cannon fodder for programmes such as Jeremy Kyle. Most of them also don't seem to be able to work out that having unprotected sex causes babies.

    I wonder if this is the level at which BBC programmes are now aimed?<quote>

    I think that may be aiming too high! smiley - biggrin

    Report message5

  • Message 106

    , in reply to message 101.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, I would really appreciate your comments on the points I raised in Post No 37.

    I was once a member of the Antilogo group LOGOFREETV, which has now sadly been wound up, because broadcasters are very powerful and know they can ignore our views and there is very little we can do about it. However all the research carried out by that group discovered the three groups into which nearly everyone falls.

    So I will ask again, for whose benefit are they, they certainly don't help any goup of viewers I know to exist.  

    Hi LogoHater. I suspect the short answer to your question is that there are many viewers that don't fit into any of the categories defined by the anti-logo group LOGOFREETV.

  • Message 107

    , in reply to message 106.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I've skimmed through this thread as it's so long, so I don't know whether the following point has been made.

    DOGS to me are a slight annoyance, (I have not seen the new BBC3 one as I never watch that channel, but bright pink sounds irritating). However the "reasoning" by THAT woman on POV has incensed me. I would have a lot more respect for the BBC if they just fessed up and admitted it is purely self promotion. It is nothing to do with helping the viewer, just like squeezing the credits is nothing to do with helping the viewer. It is advertising, hoping that you'll watch again (DOGS) or watch what's advertised for later (credit squeeze). They are on the same lines as those News(24) ads "it's what we do", and the one about "breaking" the Northern Rock story (whoopidoo).

    She should have come on and said "it's our way of advertising, in a desperate bid to forge an identity in an over populated, ever diluted medium." Do you know what NOW DOGS ARE ANNOYING ME. smiley - steam

    Report message7

  • Message 108

    , in reply to message 92.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Devon_Rex

    //Why? Just 'cause I don't get all riled up over some petty little annoyances?//

    No, just that you'd fit in very well with their mindset!

    //I'd far rather direct my attention to things that matter//

    Different things matter to different people, of course!

    Report message8

  • Message 109

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by U1158320 (U1158320) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Message posted by Library Lil
    It's a bit like an impressionist coming onto the stage and telling the audience who they're going to try and sound like, because they don't think that they're quite good enough at it yet. 


    Yes, he was called Mike Yarwood smiley - smiley

    Message posted by JohnJ
    Devon_Rex

    Ever thought of applying for a job in BBC management? I'm sure they'd love you! 


    I think it's Lee's pseudonym since he seems to have disappeared until just recently, following my questioning his point in post 58 and then him not responding with an answer.

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by bluegiant
    With advances in viewing technology, it's only a matter of time before those of us with average intelligence will be able to view in ANY format we want; with the credits full sized or minimised; with a giant pink elephant in the corner of our screens or without. The tech is there to remove the red dot at the press of a button, so it's just a question of waiting. 


    Wrong. The broadcasters have said before that they're not going to make any logos switchoffable like you can with red dots, so you're talking complete crap - especially with having control over what to do with the credits. You clearly are quite mad.

    Report message9

  • Message 110

    , in reply to message 108.

    Posted by Devon_Rex (U8846278) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    No, just that you'd fit in very well with their mindset! 

    I have my own opinions, thanks.

    Different things matter to different people, of course! 

    That is very true. The war in Iraq, corruption in public life, the problems in Burma and China, famine and genocide in Africa, the disenfranchisement of British youth - these things matter to me (as they probably matter to most people here). In light of these issues a logo in the corner of TV programme is really nothing I can het up about - sorry if you feel that makes me 'part of the system'.

    Report message10

  • Message 111

    , in reply to message 109.

    Posted by Devon_Rex (U8846278) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I think it's Lee's pseudonym since he seems to have disappeared until just recently, following my questioning his point in post 58 and then him not responding with an answer. 

    That's convenient - dismiss my opinions, which are as good as anyones here, by calling me a sock puppet. That is much better than accepting that some people just don't find things like this much of an issue. smiley - erm

    Report message11

  • Message 112

    , in reply to message 94.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    <quote> With advances in viewing technology, it's only a matter of time before those of us with average intelligence will be able to view in ANY format we want; with the credits full sized or minimised; with a giant pink elephant in the corner of our screens or without. The tech is there to remove the red dot at the press of a button, so it's just a question of waiting.<quote>

    I think we'll be waiting a long time - the red dot is one thing, their precious station ident is too important for mere viewing mortals to tamper with. If anyone comes up with some home DOG zapping kit they'll be on Dragon's Den in a trice. Oh no....wait a minute... that's a BBC programme isn't it? (See, I can remember!)Well, the Beeb wouldn't let it get as far as Theo & Co then, would they? smiley - winkeye

    Report message12

  • Message 113

    , in reply to message 112.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I'm surprised that the BBC spokesperson didn't highlight the hundreds of stations on offer now, and that BBC has to brand to be remembered from the pack........... oh yes, that would be because, that too would be an insult to most viewers. The argument goes....."There are hundreds of channels to choose from and BBC have to make sure that the viewer doesn't miss something we are offering on our channel - which is vitally important." Of course the argument is rebutted by the fact that most viewers will only have about a dozen of these 300+ channels on offer which they actually watch - so no great difficulty finding programmes we want to see, so, again, we do not need DOGs emblazoned on our screens all the time to tell us which channel we are watching.

    BBC also has the option of doing as Doghouse has mentioned on several occasions. Cut back the number of stations and worthless programmes they produce. Simply go back to BBC1 for entertainment programmes and BBC2 for more highbrow viewing. Cut a swathe through overheads, AND increase the QUALITY of the fewer programmes produced. But, then, how do you justify all those IT people and their need to produce more and more onscreen information for us, the under siege viewer?????????????? You don't. Just turn the clock back, and give the viewers good quality programmes, without the constant onscreen junk. BBC had a good product, and are slowly self-destructing by joining the rest of the channels in an arm-wrestling match, and they are losing.......

    Report message13

  • Message 114

    , in reply to message 110.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Devon_Rex

    It is possible to be concerned about all the misery in the world as well as relatively minor matters such as DOGs! I appreciate that your enjoyment of programmes (unlike mine) clearly isn't spoilt by the various forms of on-screen clutter that broadcasters impose on us, but perhaps there are other small things that matter to you that are insignificant compared to the war in Iraq etc. As I said, we're all different!

    Report message14

  • Message 115

    , in reply to message 111.

    Posted by U1158320 (U1158320) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Message posted by Devon_Rex
    That's convenient - dismiss my opinions, which are as good as anyones here, by calling me a sock puppet. That is much better than accepting that some people just don't find things like this much of an issue. 


    Generally, people post whether they like or dislike something. You clearly don't care either way so I wonder why you're bothering to post.

    I couldn't give a hoot, for example, that Man Utd have won some football thing (because I care not about football) and so I don't go into the sport forum on the BBC and actively display my passiveness.

    Report message15

  • Message 116

    , in reply to message 106.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, this doesn't begin to answer the question I asked you to reply to.

    Hi LogoHater. I suspect the short answer to your question is that there are many viewers that don't fit into any of the categories defined by the anti-logo group LOGOFREETV. 

    This was not a set of groups which LOGOFREETV imagined, they were fairly well researched and accepted as representative of viewers when LOGOFREETV convinced Channel 5 to remove their Logo. Sadly since it's demise Channel 5 have seen fit to reintroduce theirs, thus demeaning the channel to one of the many thus blighted.

    If you can't accept that those groups represent just about everybody that watches TV, could you please explain what other type of viewer there could possibly be.

    Report message16

  • Message 117

    , in reply to message 116.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    If you can't accept that those groups represent just about everybody that watches TV, could you please explain what other type of viewer there could possibly be.  
    Sorry LogoHater, I'll do my best to respond to any questions about the BBC (although I don't claim to have the answer to everything) but it's not my place to fill in any gaps in your organisation's research.

  • Message 118

    , in reply to message 117.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, I am not in any group, it dissolved some time ago. I am only using the knowledge I gained whilst a member to pose a question about whom the BBC (or any other broadcaster for that matter) believe that DOGS benefit.

    All the research by interested parties not working for broadcasters seem to believe that those 3 groups I listed in Message 37, represent the vast majority of people who watch TV.

    I wasn't requesting you should help me fill in any gaps, I was asking that if you can't accept that those 3 groups represent what I claim from my association with a defunct group, which other possibilities are there.

    Report message18

  • Message 119

    , in reply to message 117.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, if it was established that the majority of BBC viewers hate "dogs" would the BBC stop using them? Unless the answer to that question is yes then this thread is a pointless waste of time.

    BTW started watching a Michael Wood programme on BBC 4 (I think) last night and was continually irritated by the "dog" in the upper left section of the screen, that kept disappearing and reappearing depending what the picture was behind it (turned over in the end because it got on my nerves so much).

    A FEW OF PERTINENT COMMENTS: (1) Couldn't the dog be made seethrough so that it was less intrusive?, (2) Couldn't it be put right in the corner of the widescreen picture rather than in the corner of the 4:3 picture as currently seems to be the case? (3) Couldn't the dog be put in the bottom lefthand corner of the screen, a position I'd personally find less distracting?

    Report message19

  • Message 120

    , in reply to message 119.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    if it was established that the majority of BBC viewers hate "dogs" would the BBC stop using them? Unless the answer to that question is yes then this thread is a pointless waste of time. 


    smiley - smiley

    Report message20

  • Message 121

    , in reply to message 118.

    Posted by Paol02 (U10675218) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    BBC- leave the on-screen graffiti to the commercial channels and act more like the public service broadcaster you're supposed to be.

    With the lack of a DOG, we'd then all know that we were watching the BBC.

    Report message21

  • Message 122

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by U1158320 (U1158320) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, in post 58 I challenged what you said about DOGs being necessary for those who don't know what channel they're watching by giving an example that proves this isn't the case.

    Why are you staying silent on this? Why can't you give an answer? Your sience only leads me to conclude that you haven't got an answer because I've blown your argument out of the water quicker than you can say 'Belgrano'.

    Report message22

  • Message 123

    , in reply to message 119.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, if it was established that the majority of BBC viewers hate "dogs" would the BBC stop using them? Unless the answer to that question is yes then this thread is a pointless waste of time.  
    I honestly can't answer your question, bednbored, but I'm not actually convinced the majority of viewers hate DOGs.

    Let me ask another question - if it's established that the majority of the public hate paying tax, would any government agree to stop taxing people. Or are there benefits that outweigh those objections?

    If people are beginning to feel this thread is a pointless waste of time, there's little value in anyone posting on it.

  • Message 124

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    If people are beginning to feel this thread is a pointless waste of time, there's little value in anyone posting on it. 

    One persons viewpoint is not everyone. There are still a lot of us who would like some answers to the questions we have asked.

    Report message24

  • Message 125

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by Michael Take (U1341442) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Let me ask another question - if it's established that the majority of the public hate paying tax, would any government agree to stop taxing people. Or are there benefits that outweigh those objections? 
    Not fair Lee. The country could not run without tax but TV could continue without DOGS, rather comfortably

    Report message25

  • Message 126

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I posted these on another thread...

    www.guardian.co.uk/m...

    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

    Report message26

  • Message 127

    , in reply to message 125.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Not fair Lee. The country could not run without tax but TV could continue without DOGS, rather comfortably  
    I think you were missing my point, Rick. If there are benefits as well as objections then all the factors have to be taken into account. You can't always drop a policy just because it's not popular with some people. (In any case, I'm still not actually convinced the majority of viewers hate DOGs)

  • Message 128

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    honestly can't answer your question, bednbored, but I'm not actually convinced the majority of viewers hate DOGs.  


    If someone was to ask the public if they preferred their TV to carry DOGS or be DOG free. Just that very simple question, who in their right mind would believe that the vast majority wouldn't prefer to be DOG free, as opposed to having DOGS.

    No broadcaster would ever ask that question though in that way, they know the answer would not be to their liking. They prefer to ask the question in a way that can be interpreted as to imply that lots of people are not bothered by them. This is particulary disingenuous.

    Report message28

  • Message 129

    , in reply to message 126.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I'm not actually convinced the majority of viewers hate DOGs.  
    Neither, apparently, are the BBC bosses.

    Perhaps the BBC - in its capacity as a public body - should hold a referendum regarding this issue and others (ie. trailer sound increases, bias for green issues) for it's licence fee payers?

    Report message29

  • Message 130

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by Paol02 (U10675218) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Let me ask another question - if it's established that the majority of the public hate paying tax, would any government agree to stop taxing people. Or are there benefits that outweigh those objections? 

    Lee- aside from my argument that by having no DOGs the BBC would be distinguishing itself from commercial channels, shouldn't the BBC be setting standards and showing programmes as they were made to be seen ?

    Report message30

  • Message 131

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by U1158320 (U1158320) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Message posted by Lee
    Let me ask another question - if it's established that the majority of the public hate paying tax, would any government agree to stop taxing people. Or are there benefits that outweigh those objections?  


    Go back to your fruit bowl if you want to compare apples with oranges. Tax has a number of purposes whereas DOGs do not - something I proved earlier. I can't believe you posed such a stupid question, and since you can't even answer the question I posed earlier I think you're way out of your depth with such nonsense. And you know that.

    Report message31

  • Message 132

    , in reply to message 127.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee wrote:

    //If there are benefits as well as objections then all the factors have to be taken into account.//

    But there are no benefits to VIEWERS from DOGs, which is the most important thing that should be taken into account!

    Report message32

  • Message 133

    , in reply to message 128.

    Posted by LogoHater (U1159969) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Lee, before I retired I worked in an office with 96 other people. As a strong supporter of LOGOFREETV, I decided to carry out my own research.

    I emailed everyone in my office with the simple question, "would you prefer not to have LOGOS on the screen if you were to be given a choice". I explained why I was asking them and for them to be truthful.

    Most people answered, just 5 didn't. Of the people who did answer 83 said they would prefer a clean screen, with the rest saying they couldn't care less. I consider them to be a fairly representative cross section of the public.

    If my results mean anything then the broadcasters have got it very wrong. They should listen.

    Report message33

  • Message 134

    , in reply to message 131.

    Posted by Michael Take (U1341442) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Go back to your fruit bowl if you want to compare apples with oranges. 
    A good analogy dom.

    Comparing Tax to DOGS sounds rather like a despairing arguement devoid of logic.

    Report message34

  • Message 135

    , in reply to message 133.

    Posted by Michael Take (U1341442) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I emailed everyone in my office with the simple question, "would you prefer not to have LOGOS on the screen if you were to be given a choice" 
    We did a similar thing in the pub. Only 27 people and a simple question, DOGS yes or no?
    21 for a clean screen 6 said they could give a fig and no one actually said they liked them.
    Still any survey not conducted in secret by the BBC's is probably not valid. It's not what the viewers want it's what the BBC say we want.

    Report message35

  • Message 136

    , in reply to message 135.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Please, take a look at the links in message 126.

    smiley - smiley

    Report message36

  • Message 137

    , in reply to message 135.

    Posted by Doghouse Riley (U1224289) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    For a host to persist in trying to make the case for all these on-screen irritations, I can only assume he's "only following orders," the case "for" being so dumb.

    Report message37

  • Message 138

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I’m happy to respond to serious questions that will help to facilitate a debate, but I'll state here and now that I won't be responding to personal insults or to 'host-baiters' who are trying to goad me into an argument for the sake of it.

  • Message 139

    , in reply to message 136.

    Posted by Michael Take (U1341442) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Please, take a look at the links in message 126. 
    I have, Bruce, and very interesting. Questions are,
    will it ever happen?
    by the time it's been kicked around by a load of bureaucrats will it be any good?

    Report message39

  • Message 140

    , in reply to message 138.

    Posted by Doghouse Riley (U1224289) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I’m happy to respond to serious questions that will help to facilitate a debate, but I'll state here and now that I won't be responding to personal insults or to 'host-baiters' who are trying to goad me into an argument for the sake of it. 

    More than happy for you to do that Lee, but you do tend to give some what appear to be personal opinions which always seem to coincide with BBC policy.

    Report message40

  • Message 141

    , in reply to message 130.

    Posted by ChildeRoland (U11050367) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    ...shouldn't the BBC be setting standards and showing programmes as they were made to be seen ? 
    Agreed, Paol02. The idea that a so-called public service broadcaster should be tailored to suit the most ignorant, in this case TV viewers who either can't identify the channel they're watching or just don't care, is contrary to the reason for maintaining any public service broadcasting.

    With the current profusion of marketing junk littering and ruining the BBC's output, any justification for renewal of its charter is fast going down the plughole, with the baby.

    We've been lucky, in Britain, to have publicly funded television for so many years providing a quality of service hard to find elsewhere. If the youngsters seemingly in charge of BBC TV had interests other than the thrills of selling things, they would realise the days of their being funded by a legally enforced licence fee are numbered, as their 'product' increasingly resembles that produced by commercial broadcasters. The end of a publicly-funded public-service BBC would be a great loss and should be protected from the venal practices of marketing departments with no interest in good broadcasting.

    POV's Helen Kellie speaks for nobody I know when she says channel logos are a useful 'tool' for viewers. I am always aware which channel is providing which programme I might want to see at any particular time -- as are all of us posting messages on these boards. I don't (knowingly) know any of THEM. I know plenty of people who DON'T spend their time on messageboards, but in casual discussion, when the subject arises, all detest DOGs, squashed credits and the rest.

    Report message41

  • Message 142

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I honestly can't answer your question, bednbored, but I'm not actually convinced the majority of viewers hate DOGs.

    Let me ask another question - if it's established that the majority of the public hate paying tax, would any government agree to stop taxing people. Or are there benefits that outweigh those objections? 


    No one enjoys paying tax but neither do they, I suspect, enjoy having to pay for a TV licence whether or not they support the BBC.

    And the Revenue people have one advantage over the BBC - they may tax me but at least they don't burn their logo's into expensive plasma screens as well!

    Report message42

  • Message 143

    , in reply to message 138.

    Posted by U1158320 (U1158320) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Message posted by Lee
    I’m happy to respond to serious questions that will help to facilitate a debate, but I'll state here and now that I won't be responding to personal insults or to 'host-baiters' who are trying to goad me into an argument for the sake of it. 


    When will you stop making it all about you, Lee. I was not "host-baiting" as you called it.

    It's a simple way an argument works.

    You stated, as a way to indicate that DOGs are necessary: "From speaking to normal members of the public about TV every day, I would say a lot of people don't know what channel they're watching. They sometimes try to guess - "I think it was the BBC because I don't remember seeing any adverts", but most of them don't really care what channel they're on unless they want to make a complaint."

    I countered: "But logos don't solve that problem. I once read about someone really enjoying Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe on BBC3... even though it has a BBC4 logo."

    So, what is your response to that, in a bid to tell me why the BBC think they are necessary when I've proved that when it comes to the exact same kind of "normal member of public" (who came out with the above) that they're not necessary.

    I am not talking about myself here, nor anyone in this forum who actively hates DOGs, I am referring to a normal member of the public - which is the benchmark I set things when I pose questions to people while out and about, and examples of this have been shown only moments ago in Rick's post 135.

    Report message43

  • Message 144

    , in reply to message 143.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    You stated, as a way to indicate that DOGs are necessary: "From speaking to normal members of the public about TV every day, I would say a lot of people don't know what channel they're watching. They sometimes try to guess - "I think it was the BBC because I don't remember seeing any adverts", but most of them don't really care what channel they're on unless they want to make a complaint."

    I countered: "But logos don't solve that problem. I once read about someone really enjoying Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe on BBC3... even though it has a BBC4 logo."

    So, what is your response to that, in a bid to tell me why the BBC think they are necessary when I've proved that when it comes to the exact same kind of "normal member of public" (who came out with the above) that they're not necessary.  

    I'm afraid one single anecdotal example doesn't PROVE your point one way or the other.

  • Message 145

    , in reply to message 143.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I wonder, how someone with a topical name such as 'notonmyplasmayoudont', is perhaps a regular PoV MB poster but has perhaps signed in on a different account just for the topic in question?

    smiley - smiley

    Report message45

  • Message 146

    , in reply to message 144.

    Posted by Michael Take (U1341442) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I'm afraid one single anecdotal example doesn't PROVE your point one way or the other. 
    It certainly doesn't but it is strange that wherever and in whatever context I speak to people about on screen clutter the majority reaction is the same. NO.
    Just do a survey and declare a result of what people think about DOGS. The question should be set by an independent body outside of the BBC.
    This is something that is going to run and run and will not be resolved by the BBC saying people like to know what channel they are on. It is important so the BBC should not hide behind a cost factor.

    Report message46

  • Message 147

    , in reply to message 144.

    Posted by U1158320 (U1158320) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    But they're the kind of normal member of the viewing public DOGs are meant to work for. And they don't. If they did, then we would have NO examples of such people.

    That kind of person is also the same as No.3 listed below.

    Logohater said it best earlier, in msg 37, which I'll copy here to save everyone the trouble of clicking back:
    "Lee, I have pointed out on numerous occasions there are three types of viewers.

    1) Those who like me despise DOGS.

    2) Those who notice them, but can ignore them.

    3) Those who don't even notice them.

    So whose benefit are they for. Group 1, hate them, so do not benefit in any way. Group 2 couldn't care less whether they are there or not, so don't benefit from them and group 3 don't even see them, so aren't influenced by them."

    Give us some examples where DOGs work, that you have come across, then.

    Report message47

  • Message 148

    , in reply to message 145.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I wonder, how someone with a topical name such as 'notonmyplasmayoudont', is perhaps a regular PoV MB poster but has perhaps signed in on a different account just for the topic in question? 

    It is a topical name - and it's my only one.

    Get's me noticed though, doesn't it? smiley - biggrin

    Report message48

  • Message 149

    , in reply to message 144.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    I'm afraid one single anecdotal example doesn't PROVE your point one way or the other. 

    Maybe it's the sceptic in me but if one single anecdotal example supported the BBC's stance on DOGs it would be a case of "well, there you go, we told you we're right!"

    Report message49

  • Message 150

    , in reply to message 147.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Monday, 12th May 2008

    Dom, I don't mind contributing to the discussion and offering some perspective from the BBC, but the messageboard isn't meant to be a question and answer session for the hosts and I can't possible answer every point that gets raised.

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.