Online  permalink

Points of View Message Board Blog Post 5

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1001 - 1050 of 1436
  • Message 1001

    , in reply to message 998.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Niclara, I know, it just struck me that I'd got it wrong. smiley - blush

    smiley - laugh

    Report message1

  • Message 1002

    , in reply to message 1000.

    Posted by U13804688 (U13804688) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    niclaramartin please dont lose sight of why nick started "talking" to us...the bbc intend to destroy these messageboards..they need to tick the box of consultation...(after all they are a public broadcaster..which we pay for !!) once the dirty work is done nick will disappear back into the shadows ...its how they do it sadly.

    Report message2

  • Message 1003

    , in reply to message 1001.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Quote from Martin's blog...

    I know that there are vastly more than 50 users on the board, what I've said is that there are "50 or so regular users". By regular, as I've stated above, I mean the everyday core of the community who post to a lot of threads. It doesn't really matter whether the figure I give is 50 or 67 or 89 or even 500 - that audience number is not a big number 

    Am I getting this totally on it's head. Is Martin ACTUALLY saying that BBC are running the boards for the "regular" posters, and NOT, for ALL the posters. Say, there were TWO "regular" posters, but the boards had 500,000 posts/hits DAILY, is he actually saying that those "irregular" 499,998 DAILY posters DON'T COUNT. smiley - doh

    SMOKESCREEN.

    Report message3

  • Message 1004

    , in reply to message 1002.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    sparkysson

    Absolutely. smiley - ok Not taking my eye off the ball. Nick is "threatening" to close 3 out of the 5 boards, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. We have to wait.

    Regardless of the outcome, which I think we all have a fair idea about, given BBC history, Nick is NOT playing the usual BBC game. I've given him a hard time in the past, BUT, he keeps coming back, maybe not telling us much, but, at least he is prepared to put his head above the parapet and take the flak. Unlike others who disappear at the first whiff of revolt.

    Report message4

  • Message 1005

    , in reply to message 1000.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Excellent posts today Folks smiley - ok

    Report message5

  • Message 1006

    , in reply to message 1005.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    the bbc intend to destroy these messageboards 

    I know what you're saying, sparkysson, but nobody has ever said that was an option on here or on the various blogs!

    Yes, Nick has talked to us. But he is the Host of this board (I think), after all! And he has not been as communicative or helpful as any of Peta, Lee or Rowan.

    Report message6

  • Message 1007

    , in reply to message 1005.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I just wish I could get my hubby and elder daughter involved in this thread, because they are red-hot technically, and I'm the numpty. BUT, they are swamped at the moment, and unlike me, they sleep eight hours a night smiley - laugh. I can get my work done in the middle of the night. smiley - doh

    Anyway off again. Pop back later.

    Report message7

  • Message 1008

    , in reply to message 1004.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    BUT, he keeps coming back, maybe not telling us much, but, at least he is prepared to put his head above the parapet and take the flak. 

    Hear, hear. smiley - ok

    Unlike others who disappear at the first whiff of revolt. 
    Which is why Nick is taking the flak from posters about other issues.

    Nick, this is for you smiley - ale smiley - ale

    Report message8

  • Message 1009

    , in reply to message 1000.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Message posted by niclaramartin
    I must admit, I am warming to Nick and his approach to HIS community, on this thread. In all the years that I have been posting to BBC message Boards, Nick is the ONLY employee who has made ANY attempt to talk to us. >>


    Hi Niclaramartin,

    I disagree. In his personal blog Nick has refered to his "experiment in openness". It is clear to me that Nick is not here (nor indeed on his blog) other than it is a REQUIREMENT of his job. He is not at home here, nor using any of the other social media. His twitter posts are negligible, or simply "must twitter more" or "no internet today". He and his colleagues show no empathy with our community (any community).

    This is a box ticking exercise.



    He has also said other things about his mind being changed. He will not clarify either of these statements when asked directly.

    Contrast that with Lee, who even though he disagreed with a lot of us on occasions, he still revelled in the coummunity and contributed.

    Report message9

  • Message 1010

    , in reply to message 1009.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Contrast that with Lee, who even though he disagreed with a lot of us on occasions, he still revelled in the coummunity and contributed. 

    smiley - ok

    I'm not sure how the boards are now split Host-wise. Rowan is the Host on the TV Board, and she's great - as helpful and involved as Peta and Lee were.

    Is Nick just the Host for THIS board?

    It's a strange split if so. Peta and Lee were Hosts for TV and this board, which made sense because this is the place we come to gripe and complain about moderating and poster issues on the other boards.

    Report message10

  • Message 1011

    , in reply to message 1009.

    Posted by U13804688 (U13804688) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    the trouble is the culture of many at the bbc seems to be that they cannot be wrong..that is nicks starting point..he is right and we are wrong..as the last poster suggests nick has posted on here but he has never made any attempt to actually communicate with us.

    Report message11

  • Message 1012

    , in reply to message 1002.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    No we thought it was a woman's name for a while but after we did a bit or research we found out. We also thought the name Jem Stone was an alias (for obvious reasons) but no, its apparently real. Cute but real.

    It also appears that the BBC uses these kinds of criteria when dealing with us pesky persistent posters.

    powazek.com/posts/10...

    Points 8 and 9 are particularly interesting. I'm not quite sure if I'm regarded as a troll or what, maybe someone could enlighten me. Not that I'd expect the BBC to go in for stereotyping behaviour of course.

    Yes you’re right, Nick does do a fairly good job of responding on here. He does have the same traits as some other hosts, in that he often doesn’t answer the question, and the repeated references to his blog are annoying, but at least he contributes.

    Personally though I think he’s following a pre-agreed script about what the CCT will and won’t say about the future of MBs in general. But I’d be happy to be proved wrong.

    Report message12

  • Message 1013

    , in reply to message 1012.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    no. He responds a little, says nothing.

    Report message13

  • Message 1014

    , in reply to message 1013.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Ive posted this is on Martins Blog.

    This

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    ONE thread on the TV board has 50 if not more posters (not messages different posters) it has only been there since this morning. And I recognise 90% of the names as regulars.

    If ONE thread on the TV board has that many, then the whole of POV surely has more than 50 regulars.

    We are trying to get the real figures, but the BBC are not giving them to us.

    Pretty sure it's gonna be more than 50.

    Report message14

  • Message 1015

    , in reply to message 1014.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Have you read Martin's latest comment?

    Apparently 500 regular users is the new number we need to get to! smiley - laugh

    Report message15

  • Message 1016

    , in reply to message 1015.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Have you read Martin's latest comment?

    Apparently 500 regular users is the new number we need to get to! 


    Moving the goalposts isn't he.

    You know all this could be quickly put to bed if

    WE COULD JUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF UNIQUE USERS. smiley - winkeye

    Report message16

  • Message 1017

    , in reply to message 1016.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    WE COULD JUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF UNIQUE USERS. 

    It takes time, giz. All that counting and corroborating and recounting and checking and rechecking and double checking and asking others to check and checking the system for bugs and then starting again to ensure the data matches and then rechecking etc and so forth ....

    Report message17

  • Message 1018

    , in reply to message 1016.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Well Feedback never broadcast my complaint about the Radio POV board smiley - grr

    Report message18

  • Message 1019

    , in reply to message 1016.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I'm sure Nick IS toeing the party line. And, I'm also sure that he has given us very little concrete information. And I am also sure that he is very uneasy in the coat he wears on Message Boards. It is patently obvious that he is a fish out of water.

    I also think that we all know what the outcome of this exercise will be. BUT, Nick, does come here, albeit not answering our questions, but, also not being too "nippie" smiley - winkeye. Jem only appears to shoot us down in flames. Not exactly open dialogue, but we know what we are going to get when Jem appears.

    The point which BBC seem to have overlooked in their myriad of meetings regarding meeting targets, and being seen to link to the outside www, is that they would be seen as VERY much embracing the outside world, IF they gave the man in the street the clout to comment, and be treated with respect. Have their questions addressed by BBC staff, and not put in a box and sat in a corner. Whilst BBC EMLOYEES, continue to dominate the blogging/news blogs etc and therefore present BBC in the way the Corporation staff want the world to see them. In other words they are not embracing the ideals of the Trust, in so far as, letting the outside world in, and not swamping www with THEIR own output. I think this explains the flurry of external links which BBC staff are doing. It's not that they are particularly useful/relevant, but it meets quotas for external links.

    Report message19

  • Message 1020

    , in reply to message 1019.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Curmy smiley - sadface smiley - grr

    Report message20

  • Message 1021

    , in reply to message 1019.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I think it is interesting that Jem has come on here and reprimanded a poster for insulting one of her colleagues (which he didn't). When Jem himself told Niclaramartin to stop posting here. I know you let it go over you head Niclaramartin, but I took offence on your behalf.

    I try to avoid personal attacks, I've been drawn in a couple of times, after much goading (here's a link to a blog smiley - steam ). And most of my banal silly comments come in the middle of a heated part of the debate for a reason (to calm it down a bit).

    It would be good if personal attacks were not a part of this debate. But it would also be good if Jem stopped antagonising people.

    If a message contravenes the house rules then hide it. If it does not then back off.

    Report message21

  • Message 1022

    , in reply to message 1021.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    gizmo

    When Jem himself told Niclaramartin to stop posting here. I know you let it go over you head Niclaramartin, but I took offence on your behalf. 

    I treated with the disdain it deserved. And apparantly WE are not the only ones having problems with Hosts/Mods. This thread has appeared, which co-incides with what we are saying. That inocuous postings are being removed/hidden. IF the rules have changed/been tightened, then TELL the community.

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    This is usually the prequel to something not nice happening. BBC have a tried and tested method of ignoring comments, then, coming down hard. When posters protest, the outcome is that BBC say that either the boards don't have enough traffic (not true of Television), or that it is too rowdy and has to be trimmed.

    Nick, you have to look into this matter of moderation, as it is obvious posters to the POV boards feel something is amiss.

    Report message22

  • Message 1023

    , in reply to message 1022.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    That was my question to Nick yesterday, niclaramartin. The quote I posted was direct from CCT and it directly contradicts the house rules shown on the boards.

    Nick has still to respond.

    Report message23

  • Message 1024

    , in reply to message 1023.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Geoff

    There seems to have been a wee meeting to discuss moderation of the boards, and a decision has been made to hammer us, if we veer "off" topic, or make comments not suitable for Primary 1.

    I think, when this happens, and it does happen. Someone from BBC should post saying "We are going to be more rigid in enforcing the House Rules". BUT, no. It swings from no-one coming near us, to Mother Superior reviewing the posts. (Actually, Mother Superiors that I know have been quite fun, and a wee bit naughty, so probably would be less robust than the present Moderation Team).

    Nick, who ARE the PRIVATE company who are censoring our posts? smiley - erm

    Report message24

  • Message 1025

    , in reply to message 999.

    Posted by jTemplar (U13714316) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    With regard to the viability of the POV Messageboards based on number of users, I would not be surprised if the number was low.

    How do people find these boards? I can't remember how I stumpled across them, but if a viewer or listener was to go to the BBC homepage at bbc.co.uk they would see no link to these boards, or at least I can't see it.

    Perhaps they follow the advice of Jeremy Vine on the TV programme Points Of View, however since December 2008 I have posted several messages reporting the problem with the URL given-out by Jeremy - bbc.co.uk/pov redirects to www.bbc.co.uk/progra... which is a list of links to recent episodes of POV.

    Nick is well aware of this problem but to date has failed to rectify the sitution despite several promises to 'look into it' and 'chase again', etc.

    A previous link, which did work, , now takes your Watchdog.

    A messageboard user, natalione, posted back in November 2008, saying "Out of interest, if you'd never known at all there were messageboards on this site and you started at bbc.co.uk how would you find them (apart from a neaderthal-like a to z foray)?"

    Helpfully, 'Central Communities Team' replied saying: "If you're struggling to find something on the BBC website, there's a link on the homepage to the A-Z www.bbc.co.uk/a-z/... or you can just search for it in the box at the top of the page"

    Well, I've tried folloing that 'advice' and it is as natalione described it, "neaderthal-like" and, in my case, unfruitful.

    I wonder why the BBC not properly link to these messageboards?

    john

    Report message25

  • Message 1026

    , in reply to message 1025.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    niclaramartin, the issue I had was that the house rules state (and it's in BOLD, just to be obvious) that messages on a reactively moderated board are only checked if a complaint is made about them. Yet the CCT tell me something entirely different, that certain users are monitored and given special treatment. Which is Orwellian. So who's right?

    Report message26

  • Message 1027

    , in reply to message 1025.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I originally found these pages from a link at the bottom of the homepage BBC.CO.UK entitled contact us. This is no longer there.

    I thought at the time that I would be getting involved with discussions with viewers AND the BBC. I think I realised after about a week, that the BBC were not listening.

    Report message27

  • Message 1028

    , in reply to message 1025.

    Posted by U6679583 (U6679583) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    >>>>>> It swings from no-one coming near us, to Mother Superior reviewing the posts. <<<<<<<

    Don't it just!

    As to the invisibility of the boards - yup, they took the "talk" tab off the frontpage when they rejigged it. For a while you could search for "talk" and the main talk page came up as the first hit. But that's stopped now.

    Meanwhile, the 6mmb have been made almost invisible - presumambly in order to minimise the number of irregular/casual posters, as a precursor to getting rid of them.

    Report message28

  • Message 1029

    , in reply to message 1022.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Nick

    From message 23 of this link

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    what is the web address of the online message board Nippie? 

    It indicates that there are posters (new or previous), who know nothing about this discussion. That is the problem with holding a discussion about POV Messageboards, hidden away either on your blogs or on this board, which is NOT, a board which receives many visitors.

    The blog network is linked to from all over the place. You have to go armed with a macheté and torch to find the Message Boards, and even once there, most will settle for the Television Board, never venturing to even the other boards on POV.

    I hope with hindsight you can see why we Message Boarders felt that the debate/discussion SHOULD have been held on the Television Board, which has the MOST visitors (both "regular" and newbies)

    Report message29

  • Message 1030

    , in reply to message 1029.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Good grief. We've all within 8 minutes discussed the invisibility of the BBC Messageboards. smiley - yikes

    Report message30

  • Message 1031

    , in reply to message 1000.

    Posted by jTemplar (U13714316) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    BTW, congratulations to niclaramartin on being post number 1000 in this thread - and it was a smiley - cracker:-

    niclaramartin wrote: "I am warming to Nick"

    smiley - rose smiley - peacedove smiley - magic smiley - bubbly smiley - bubbly smiley - magic smiley - peacedove smiley - rose

    john smiley - laugh

    Report message31

  • Message 1032

    , in reply to message 1031.

    Posted by Curmy (U10228939) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Curmy smiley - sadface 


    I know Niclara, I'm very upset !

    BTW congrats on writing the 1.000 th post smiley - magic

    Report message32

  • Message 1033

    , in reply to message 1011.

    Posted by Seurat (U1158192) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47 GMT, in reply to sparkysson in message 1011

    ...that is nicks starting point..he is right and we are wrong... 

    Yes, he's often said that blogs are nicer. That BBC employees personal blogs have strict rules. That blogs have their finger on the pulse and offer better feedback.

    If so, how does his own preferred home on the web (the BBC Internet Blog) stack up?

    Some "interesting stuff" from his "Co-editor, BBC Internet Blog" Dave Lee, around the beginning of February, on his personal blog - daveleejblog.com/... - linked prominently from his BBC profile.
    How long would a poster be on pre-mod if he posted the four-letter word contained there? Or even linked to it? Priceless!

    Then there's the "Blogroll" (How witty. How apposite.) of BBC-approved bloggers' blogs and our good friend Jem Stone's linked blog, "Common User" - www.commonusers.blog... - which is nearing the anniversary of its last missive. A little spring-cleaning may be in order.

    Report message33

  • Message 1034

    , in reply to message 1031.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    John

    BTW, congratulations to niclaramartin on being post number 1000 in this thread - and it was a smiley - cracker :-

    niclaramartin wrote: "I am warming to Nick" 


    Aw no, that makes it look as if I am dominating this thread. smiley - winkeye smiley - laugh

    Thanks John smiley - hug

    I'll need to go back and read it now. smiley - winkeye

    Report message34

  • Message 1035

    , in reply to message 1032.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Well we know why one particular thread has been made invisible to Google. People Googling the name of a certain rather unpopular 6Music presenter would be clogging up the boards I imagine.

    I was posting comments on YouTube and DrownedinSound for months before I realised that the BBC actually had its own message boards, they were so well hidden.

    So much for 'reaching out'.

    Report message35

  • Message 1036

    , in reply to message 1033.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Seurat

    I've had this out with Nick before. That linking from within BBC website, by BBC employees to their Private Twitters/blogs should be moderated as heavily as posters to BBC Messageboards.

    I can remember when we couldn't link to Youtube, and if a mod found a link you had posted, which perhaps five or six links later took you to dubious material, your link (and whole post) was removed.

    I spoke to Nick about Tom's Twitter linking, within two clicks to a swearing competition, but was told that it is their private Twitters (linked from inside the BBC Website smiley - doh) and that they are abiding by BBC employees protocol.

    The fact that BBC employees find it amusing/witty/clever/intelligent/enlightening/grown-up to THEMSELVES put swear words on show, just defies explanation (and is indeed indefensible).

    One word - DISGRACEFUL.

    But, then one rule for them, and a MUCH stricter one for us.

    It's the fact that BBC employees hold THEMSELVES up to such ridicule, by arrogantly trying to belittle message boarders, and keep us caged, when the content of their own missives are often quite frankly, DIRE. BBC needs to reign it's employees in from the banal Twittering, and make sure that their blogs are of quality.

    Report message36

  • Message 1037

    , in reply to message 1035.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    "I think BBC know exactly what message boarders want. The question is how to marginalise them, and then phase them out, in the face, of huge numbers"

    Please don't be so suspicious. This is not my intention (nor is my intention to "destroy" these boards)

    My colleagues and myself regulalry look at the BBC's blogs and message boards and thinking about the quality of hosting, and the quality of the content as well as things like value for money and functionality.

    As for the numbers, I will write a blog post about this, hopefully for publication in the next couple of weeks (I've been on leave for most of this week).

  • Message 1038

    , in reply to message 1037.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    "The fact that BBC employees find it amusing/witty/clever/intelligent/enlightening/grown-up to THEMSELVES put swear words on show,"

    To be accurate the swearing you talk of was not actually on Tom's twitter but someone else's.

    And to say again Tom's personal twitter is not the same as a BBC board.

  • Message 1039

    , in reply to message 1037.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    As for the numbers, I will write a blog post about this, hopefully for publication in the next couple of weeks  

    I'm not sure if I want a smiley - doh or a smiley - laugh

    Nick, the question was asked HERE, on this VERY THREAD. WHY post a blog about it?? Why not just answer the question where it was asked?

    Report message39

  • Message 1040

    , in reply to message 1038.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    As for Dave's personal blog well again this is his personal blog. I can't see any four letter word here unless I've missed it. There's nothing in the post you're linking to which seems to me difficult in terms of our guidelines on employees personal blogs.

  • Message 1041

    , in reply to message 1040.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    "Nick, the question was asked HERE, on this VERY THREAD. WHY post a blog about it??"

    I don't want to post long articles on a message board like this. I always wanted to write a post with some numbers in long before the question was asked here. Posting on the blog will give people who aren't part of the POV community a chance to comment.

  • Message 1042

    , in reply to message 1039.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Nick the reason we are so suspicious is because of the track record of BBC Messageboard closures even you must admit the way boards have been closed before has been totally unacceptable.

    Report message42

  • Message 1043

    , in reply to message 1038.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Nick

    Tom links FROM his workplace i.e. BBC to his Private Twitter. I know it is his private Twitter. I have never said it is a BBC Twitter. However, linking FROM BBC by BBC employees should be as rigorously moderated as linking by posters from the Message Boards.

    If I linked to MY Twitter from BBC message boards it would be removed. If I linked to a site, where two clicks later, there was a swearing competition, the posting would be removed.

    BBC employees seem to be allowed FAAAAAAAAR more
    leaway than we are. From what I have read and seen of most Twitters, (not yours by the way - except "WHO WERE THE FORCES OF DARKNESS" smiley - laugh), posts appear unbelievably banal and juvenille. Twitters MUST accept these people onto their Twitter list, so, Tom, yourself and other BBC employees are more culpable and responsible for the contents of links from people on your Twitters, than we are to links to external sites.

    Report message43

  • Message 1044

    , in reply to message 1043.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Nick

    If you can't see the swear word, then you have not read far enough....

    Scroll down to BBC Nottingham webcam picture. Dave, very kindly even informs us to "click to enlarge". What a thoroughly kind and generous soul he is.

    Happy reading. smiley - grr

    Report message44

  • Message 1045

    , in reply to message 1043.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I don't think BBC employees have more leeway.

    But you have to remember the POV boards have the logo BBC at the top. Personal twitter accounts don't.

  • Message 1046

    , in reply to message 1045.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I don't want to post long articles on a message board like this. I always wanted to write a post with some numbers in long before the question was asked here. Posting on the blog will give people who aren't part of the POV community a chance to comment. 

    And what about the POV community?

    What about the posters who actually asked the question?

    Do you honestly not see how posting the answer to a question asked here elsewhere, on a medium we have already said we don't like, could be construed as a bit impolite or even rude?

    Report message46

  • Message 1047

    , in reply to message 1046.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    No I don't think it's impolite or unreasonable at all. I'll provide a link to the blog as I always do and you'll be able to discuss it here on the boards or on the blog itself whichever you prefer.

    It would be unreasonable if I didn't provide a link or ignored your comments on the board. But I will engage in the same way as I always do.

  • Message 1048

    , in reply to message 1045.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    I have to disagree Nick. Follow the link to Jem's old blogs from the earlier post and scroll down to good old Spongebob. My, what a potty mouth. Even when quoting Liam Gallagher.

    And pretty much any link we post won't be to a site with a BBC logo on it either.





    Report message48

  • Message 1049

    , in reply to message 1045.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Nick

    Where's Wally. Found the hidden swear word, yet. ONLY, it's not so hidden as you would like to believe. It's there for all to see. And, maybe a small point to you, and whoever wrote the BBC guidelines (you), BUT, for BBC employees to have private blogs, BUT, tell everyone they work(ed) for BBC, DOES bring BBC into disrepute, when, we, the public, can read words, which BBC would never allow a message boarder to use. And to be perfectly honest, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of BBC message boarders WOULD NEVER use.

    Report message49

  • Message 1050

    , in reply to message 1047.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Friday, 20th February 2009

    Nick that sounds fair smiley - ok

    Report message50

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

BBC © 2014 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.