Online  permalink

Points of View Message Board Blog Post 5

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1031 - 1080 of 1436
  • 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 message1

  • 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 message2

  • 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 message3

  • 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 message4

  • 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 message5

  • 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 message6

  • 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 message9

  • 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 message12

  • 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 message13

  • 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 message14

  • 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 message16

  • 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 message18

  • 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 message19

  • Message 1050

    , in reply to message 1047.

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

    Nick that sounds fair smiley - ok

    Report message20

  • Message 1051

    , in reply to message 1049.

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

    If the word was on a BBC board or blog then I would agree with you. But it's on a personal blog and in context I don't think it's a problem.

  • Message 1052

    , in reply to message 1050.

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

    I noticed that you said you didn't understand why we got so frustrated with your linking to blogs on Martin's external blog, Nick.

    I think we're at an impasse with this particular disagreement.

    Report message22

  • Message 1053

    , in reply to message 1052.

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

    Yes and I have to go.

    Back tomorrow possibly.

  • Message 1054

    , in reply to message 1052.

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

    So, essential the rule is this:

    BBC employees can link to blogs or twitters that contain strong language.

    and, er, we can't.

    Is that about right?

    Report message24

  • Message 1055

    , in reply to message 1050.

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

    Nick that sounds fair smiley - ok 

    Seconded. smiley - ok

    Report message25

  • Message 1056

    , in reply to message 1054.

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

    Don't get too excited Folks, Nicks latest blog will appear in a week ...

    or two smiley - whistle

    Report message26

  • Message 1057

    , in reply to message 1054.

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

    Geoff

    That is what Nick told us earlier in this thread, so, he really can't move from his own guidelines. Maybe, he needs to go and re-think the aspect of BBC employees announcing that they work for BBC on the Private/Personal blogs/Twitters. But then, those blogs/Twitters are written on the back of their position within the BBC.

    Probably have Dave by the throat tomorrow though smiley - laugh Not a lot he can do about Jem's external swearfest smiley - erm Jem's his boss, isn't he?

    As I say, holding themselves up to ridicule.

    Report message27

  • Message 1058

    , in reply to message 1057.

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

    I can understand people feeling a bit annoyed the way Nick has conducted this experiment but the persistent digs at him are not helping anyone.

    Nick has met us in the middle by communiacting with us via this thread which is more that can be said about previous hosts.

    So come on folks lets cut out the jibes and sarcastic comments.

    Report message28

  • Message 1059

    , in reply to message 1045.

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

    Night Nick, but in your absence I shall continue to ask questions, which hopefully you can address if not tomorrow, then when you do pop back in.

    "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) 


    You've ALMOST committed to print, the fact that you won't destroy the boards. BUT, what does Destroy mean? To my mind, the NEW iplayer board HAS destroyed that board. Whereas you would probably feel more at home on there, than on this set-up. It's all in the eye of the beholder. What you feel is NOT DESTROYING could be ARMAGEDDON to us. Please be sensitive to what we like about the boards, whilst improving the functions WE feel need tweaked.

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

    BUT, they do say..... This blog is written by Dave Lee. I am the (new) co-editor of the BBC Internet Blog  and Name: Jem Stone
    I work for the BBC within its website/new media team. 


    And, although you, and BBC may think that the disclaimer The views here are mine. They are not those of the BBC.  exhonorates/distances BBC from any connection, it DOES NOT, for the simple reason, that in both cases, they have given their names, AND THEN THAT THEY WORK FOR BBC, thereby, CONNECTING themselves and subsequent comments back to BBC.

    Legally, the disclaimer protects BBC, but, it does NOT protect BBC from alignment through association. Therefore, readers of the blogs/twitters, have had it re-enforced that these are BBC employees, and a lot of their comments will be based on BBC work-related events/experiences.

    So, you can dress it up any way you want, BUT, the reader of those PRIVATE blogs/Twitters WILL read them from THEIR OWN PERPECTIVE of BBC, as much as to the contents by the author.

    Report message29

  • Message 1060

    , in reply to message 1058.

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

    Professor

    I think that most of us will be happy that Nick HAS moved from his original position of asking us only to post to his blog, and is now willing to let us post THERE or HERE.

    As I've said, Nick has at least popped his head above the parapet. BUT, sometimes, he is defending the indefensible. When he does that he is open to be shot down. I feel sorry for him that BBC staff have put him in a position of having to defend his own guidelines as being water-tight, when we can all see that they are abusing them, by showing photos of swearing/or linking to swearing competitions through people they have accepted onto their Twitter network. IF BBC employees CHOOSE to Twitter or write Private Blogs, they either shouldn't link from within BBC, or NOT highlight that they work for BBC - it's a sales pitch, no more, no less - on the back of BBC's name. If they simply posted their name and an outline of their experience, WITHOUT saying they work for BBC, then, they would not receive anything like the amount of credibility or response to their blogs.

    We don't come on the message boards telling everyone who we work for, or our position in our workplace. We have to work for acceptance/respect from other posters. We can't just swan in here and say, "I'm Bill Gates, I know a wee bit about computers".smiley - doh I'll bet there are some super-intelligent/well educated posters, or people who have retired having created their own businesses, or people from Academia who post to POV message boards. They don't post, saying Professor John Brown, Oxford Don specialising in Ancient Languages. They post as "nickytam" or "clappitnag", and HAVE to earn respect, ONLY on the quality/wit/intelligence of their ANONYMOUS postings.

    Report message30

  • Message 1061

    , in reply to message 1060.

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

    A wee throw-away comment from Jem to a blog author....

    May 30, 2008 at 1:24 am
    Hi Alf

    Thanks for pulling out these quotes. I was pleased to read them! Discalaimer: I’m responsible for the BBC’s blogging platform.

    Yep.. These trends are holding up into 2008, with unique users per week for all blogs being over 1m in recent weeks and comments c25K a month. (far more comments are stil left at our traditional boards and the have your say forums though.). 


    reportr.net/2008/05/...

    I think Nick confirmed that the message boards were still receiving more hits than the blogs, so.............. over 1m unique users per week for all blogs in May 2008.

    Report message31

  • Message 1062

    , in reply to message 1061.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Saturday, 21st February 2009

    Sorry, that last post was a "hit and run" one, so didn't get the opportunity to highlight the following comments from the link.

    These figures suggest that the informal, conversational tone of the blogs resonates with audiences 

    Forgive me, but, aren't we always put down for "conversing"smiley - winkeye. Another point, is that, NEARLY EVERY single blog on BBC that I have looked at, either has 0 comments, very few comments, or very little continued "conversation" from the BBC author.

    Which is confirmed by the final sentence in the blog....

    The BBC itself and my research has found that editors on the whole tend to regard blogs as a publishing platform, rather than as a way of engaging with audiences.  


    The BBC link within that blog, where a BBC employee is confirming what we have been saying. Not everyone should blog.

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    And that was in November 2007.

    And, I would say, that from what we have been saying, there has been very little improvement in quality (by most, not all, Nick smiley - winkeye), or interaction with the "audience" on BBC blogs.

    The FIRST comment in response to THAT BBC blog, is..

    Your blogs are a very welcome thing at the BBC. They do give us users a chance to express our opinions, even if I am not sure they get to the top decision makers? 

    Again, forgive me, but Message Boards give us a chance to express our opinions, and they are OUR opinions, NOT responses to blog authors' opinions "even if I am not sure they get to the top decision makers  So, exactly what is the difference. We post our opinions on the Message Boards and there is no interaction. BBC, staff write blogs (so constraining viewer original postings), and then, more often than not, receives either NO or little response, because the blog is of no interest, poorly written, or, even worse, having elicited response, the BBC author has moved on to their next blog, and so, no interaction.smiley - doh At least on the message boards, you have other posters to continue to talk to, whereas blogs can die a death if not fed by the author.

    The answer, was very simple. BBC staff should simply have responded to comments on the Message Boards, but blogs are about CONTROL, and WE are totally out of control over on the message boards smiley - winkeye.









    Report message32

  • Message 1063

    , in reply to message 1062.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Saturday, 21st February 2009

    "I think Nick confirmed that the message boards were still receiving more hits than the blogs"

    Did I? Where?

    As for being "out of control", well that's never a good thing whatever you are doing (with perhaps a few exceptions).

    However, to be serious you are right that the key point is the quality of interaction, hosting and conversation. And this applies to both blogs and message boards. But I did write a whole blog post on this subject:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

  • Message 1064

    , in reply to message 1063.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Saturday, 21st February 2009

    Andt started a messageboard thread Nick, don't forget about this www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    smiley - winkeye

    Report message34

  • Message 1065

    , in reply to message 1063.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Saturday, 21st February 2009

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by NickReynolds
    "I think Nick confirmed that the message boards were still receiving more hits than the blogs"

    Did I? Where?>>

    Instead of replying by questioning us (yet not correcting us), perhaps it would be better if you just provided the correct information.

    Report message35

  • Message 1066

    , in reply to message 1065.

    Posted by U13804688 (U13804688) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    just to agree with officer dibbles last post..trying to be smart is very unbecoming for a man in your position nick...the recent anger at a bbc link being given to an ex employees blog (sic)where he lies about figures to surropt his argumeent and your complete unwillingness to take issue with it demeans you.
    but hey its that labour mid management ethos ..the same ethos which has brought so much heartache to the bbc recently.

    Report message36

  • Message 1067

    , in reply to message 1066.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Indeed, and Nick still has ignored requests for him to clarify his statements. Like perhaps explaining what he meant by:

    Nick's blog quote:"But it has been really interesting and I’ve learned a lot about message boards and how people behave.

    And my mind has been changed." at nickreynoldsatwork.w...

    I asked a long time ago for clarification, and then again, and you said you would, but didn't.

    Report message37

  • Message 1068

    , in reply to message 1067.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) ** on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    In Officer Dibble's above link Nick you highlight my message which starts

    Do you get paid for this? Is this really your main role, or is it just an add on, to something which is more constructive?

    These blogs just seem like a waste of space and time, they achieve little (if anything) and just seem like a place for you to post any particular musings that you may have at any point in time. 


    I stand by that.

    The BBC's mission statement is

    To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain. 

    I do not understand how the blogs about the future of the messageboards fulfill the above. We are no further forward now than we were when all this started. (You may be, but we the messageboard community are still waiting with bated breath).

    We are still in the dark as to what your plans are, we are not being kept fully informed nor educated, and the blogs are definately not entertaining (although some of the posts on here make me laugh out loud). Is there a time frame for all this, or will we still be here in a year?

    I still don't fully understand what your role is, or as I put in my post, what you are being paid for. Are you a blogger who has been asked to manage the POV board? Or a board techie who blogs?

    Nick all of this has been handled so badly, I don't know whether relations can be pulled back from here. And when you post your next blog, in a week or two, the merry-go-round will start again, with us complaining that it should be here, and you just posting links to your blogs.

    It's sad, you had so much feedback to your blog asking what improvements could be made to the board, there was such an obvious sense that messageboard users wanted the boards to be the best they could be, you and the team had the opportunity to gleen information from a group of people passionate about the subject. But the whole excercise has fallen apart.

    I fear little more of any value can be extracted from this debacle, as so little on this thread is directly linked to the original question (can anyone remember it?). That's a real shame, for both sides.


    Report message38

  • Message 1069

    , in reply to message 1068.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    I wasn't "trying to be smart". I don't remember saying anything of kind suggested by niclaramartin which was why I was asking for a prompt/source.

    Gizmomoo - I have explained many times who I am, what my role is and what I am doing, not least in these two blog posts:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

  • Message 1070

    , in reply to message 1069.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Nick: May I draw your attention to the post you appear to have ignored above the one you responded to?

    Clip:<<
    Indeed, and Nick still has ignored requests for him to clarify his statements. Like perhaps explaining what he meant by:

    Nick's blog quote:"But it has been really interesting and I’ve learned a lot about message boards and how people behave.

    And my mind has been changed." at nickreynoldsatwork.w...

    I asked a long time ago for clarification, and then again, and you said you would, but didn't.>>

    Report message40

  • Message 1071

    , in reply to message 1069.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) ** on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Recently my boss Jem Stone has gone to BBC radio where he's now in charge of their communities, blogs and message boards. Which means that some of the things he used to have responsibility for have fallen to Tom Van Aardt (Communities Editor, FM&T) and to me. 

    I don't know what Jem used to do, so I don't know what you became responsible for.

    So to "sort out these boards" both myself and Jem are now taking on a more active role hosting them. And in the next few weeks we hope to have additional hosting on the boards as well. So I hope the situation will improve. 

    In order to deal with this on a temporary basis I decided that I would host the BBC, bbc.co.uk and Digital boards (as explained in this previous post). 


    So you're a host, but you're not "just" a host are you? And you're not a host like Peta, Lee, and now Rowan.

    So no I don't think you ever have fully explained what your role is. I still have no idea where you are coming from in terms of ideas, except for your statment that you are a blogger rather than a messageboarder.

    But then again it may just be me.




    Report message41

  • Message 1072

    , in reply to message 1071.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    No, not just you giz. Jem is supposed to host the 6Music boards. Disappeared without trace, popped up for a week, and has now been absent again for two weeks (after closing a thread without any explanation). So why appoint people who spend all their working hours on vision quests to 'look after' boards where people would like some interaction. Most curious

    Report message42

  • Message 1073

    , in reply to message 1072.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    OfficerDibble - I don't think I did say I would clarify it. But let's just say I'm less sceptical about the value of the POV boards now than I was when I started.

    But my mind can always change again!

  • Message 1074

    , in reply to message 1073.

    Posted by quitedutchbrit (U10671966) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Oh dear, Nick.
    You sound a bit of a nasty piece of work to me (only in MHO of course, no doubt will be expurgated from this thread but, what of that)

    Message posted by NickReynolds

    to OfficerDibble - I don't think I did say I would clarify it. But let's just say I'm less sceptical about the value of the POV boards now than I was when I started.

    But my mind can always change again! 


    Only now have I picked up this thread and read though it and Nick, you DO NOT come out well. The quote above is very silly indeed. It would be unworthy of most people.

    Report message44

  • Message 1075

    , in reply to message 1074.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    I was being frivolous.

    Humour doesn't come across well online.

  • Message 1076

    , in reply to message 1075.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) ** on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    You needed a smiley - winkeye

    Report message46

  • Message 1077

    , in reply to message 1075.

    Posted by quitedutchbrit (U10671966) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Sounds like you already knew that before you were being 'frivolous', Nick?

    I was being frivolous.

    Humour doesn't come across well online. 


    I think you'd come over better if you were serious, conscientious and respectful of others' opinions - just a hint
    (not being frivolous at all)

    Report message47

  • Message 1078

    , in reply to message 1077.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) ** on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    To be fair we have often asked Nick to lighten up a bit.

    And plenty of us on here are not respectful of his and Jem's opinions.

    It's a two way street.

    Report message48

  • Message 1079

    , in reply to message 1078.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Nick, you said in message 197:
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    that you'd look at my questions. that was a long time ago. Perhaps if you'd answer straight questions with straight unambiguous answers we would be less inclined to snipe at your apparent evasion. Injecting humour online relies on any readers being able to differentiate between a joke and the truth. Currently the difference in your posts is negligible.

    Report message49

  • Message 1080

    , in reply to message 1078.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Monday, 23rd February 2009

    Sorry guys, I'm going to be absent for a wee while. I've injured my back putting my daughter's wheelchair in the car. smiley - sadface (I always bend my knees and lift properly,smiley - ok) BUT, it got caught on one of her myriad of accoutriments (she travels with enough baggage to do Mariah Carey proud smiley - winkeye), threw me off balance, and ........... oh ye besum. (That's NOT swearing Nick - simple exclamation in Scots).smiley - ok

    Anyway, NOT, going to be spending much time looking for links or furthering this discussion at present.

    May, I ask, though, Nick, will you look into the moderation which is going on on the boards in the past week or two? If moderation is going to be tougher, then tell the posters. And, if, as it actually appears the moderation is all over the place, could you look into that? smiley - ok

    Wouldn't mind some of my (and other posters) QUESTIONS being answered, if you don't mind. smiley - ok

    As Arnie says, "I'll be back!!!!". (Sorry Nick)smiley - winkeye

    Footnote: Nick, could you learn a few smileys? The written word is very confusing, and can be read many ways. A wee smiley clears up confusing humourous postings - especially as you are not really known on this thread for humour - although personally, I am now finding the linking to blogs hilarious. smiley - doh

    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.



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.