Online  permalink

Points of View Message Board Blog Post 5

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 511 - 560 of 1436
  • Message 511

    , in reply to message 510.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Officer Dibble, Nick has said that those words were Jem's. Although that is not at all clear from the article.

    And Nick has not replied till now because he was in a meeting (although he did manage to post in the comments section under the article before posting on here ... smiley - winkeye).

    Just out of interest, Nick, did you know the article was coming out today? Because really you should have anticipated a response from us!

    Report message1

  • Message 512

    , in reply to message 511.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Hi Cricket.

    I wanted it to be crystal clear, as nick invariably answers ambiguously. Jemima Kiss is the Guardian Journo that wrote (badly) the article and mis-attributed her opinion to Nick (if that is fact).

    The point I made was that we all were outraged at what we reasonably thought were Nick's comments, yet Nick, characteristically, decided to ignore clearing up the confusion in his "i was in a meeting post" and let us continue thinking he'd said those things. It took another 30 minutes and prompting from Niclarmartin to get a correction.

    Report message2

  • Message 513

    , in reply to message 512.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    That was my opinion of the article too. Clearly written by someone who spends so long blogging and twittering (via their shiny new iPhone) to see past the end of their own nose.

    Report message3

  • Message 514

    , in reply to message 513.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    I really couldn't tell who which quote was being attributed to.

    Badly written.

    Makes me feel better about my incoherent ramblings.

    Report message4

  • Message 515

    , in reply to message 513.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    I'm very confused now!

    I thought Jem was one of our Hosts? I didn't see the journalist's name so I assumed the Jem in the article (and the one Nick referred to above) was our Host, Jem.

    Report message5

  • Message 516

    , in reply to message 514.

    Posted by Gizmomoo (U10999499) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    I really couldn't tell who which quote was being attributed to.

    Badly written.

    Makes me feel better about my incoherent ramblings. 


    Of course that should read "each quote", but hey I'm not being paid for this am I.

    Report message6

  • Message 517

    , in reply to message 508.

    Posted by The Phazer (U815970) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    The quote I posted above in context reads as though it could have come from any of Nick, Jem or the journalist! 

    Err... I am the only person with reading comprehension here? It's very clearly from Jemima Kiss. That's why it doesn't have quotation marks around it. Like a quote would. Hence the name.

    Phazer

    Report message7

  • Message 518

    , in reply to message 516.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    And like a lot of bloggers 'Jemima' hasn't bothered to go back to respond to any of the comments entered. So a one way discussion there as well.

    Judging from her knowledge of 'legacy systems' she probably thinks compact discs replaced Betamax.....

    Report message8

  • Message 519

    , in reply to message 509.

    Posted by The Phazer (U815970) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    BTW is the Phazer a collaegaue of yours because he comes out with stuff that really BBC Insiders should know about. 

    I am not. I know just as much about the other broadcasters within the UK, and the publishers too (did you know for example that the Guardian journalists are revolting due to their new content management system, called R2, and the fact that it doesn't work?).

    That's because it is my job to screw as much money as humanly possible out of all of them. And I'm frankly amazingly good at it.

    I doubt there are many people at the BBC who know as much as I do about it.

    Phazer

    Report message9

  • Message 520

    , in reply to message 519.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    There was some underlying sarcasm in my message 500, Phazer.

    Report message10

  • Message 521

    , in reply to message 519.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Guardian journalists are revolting due to their new content management system, called R2 
    Didn't the MI5 registry computer network used to be called R2?

    Sorry irrelevant question...carry on

    Report message11

  • Message 522

    , in reply to message 518.

    Posted by The Phazer (U815970) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    And like a lot of bloggers 'Jemima' hasn't bothered to go back to respond to any of the comments entered. 

    She often does (we've had some fights smiley - smiley ), and the poor girl is pregnant - she is entirely possibly out of the office given the weather or out doing journalism.

    The Guardian's comment system also doesn't work for us "meeja" types on our iPhones, so if she's not at her desk she won't be able to reply.

    Phazer

    Report message12

  • Message 523

    , in reply to message 522.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Fair does, just surprised that see resorted to the old Betamax cliche. We all know that was a better format than VHS. smiley - smiley

    Report message13

  • Message 524

    , in reply to message 523.

    Posted by just_lookin (U10094798) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Hi Chaps,

    Thought you might be interested in this.

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

    Report message14

  • Message 525

    , in reply to message 524.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    "... mis-attributed her opinion to Nick (if that is fact)."

    I don't think she mis-attributed her opinion to me. To me its quite clear who is saying what.

    But then I have been in a lot of meetings today.

    Report message15

  • Message 526

    , in reply to message 525.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Evidently a lot of posters disagree. What did you say?

    Report message16

  • Message 527

    , in reply to message 525.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:12 GMT, in reply to NickReynolds in message 525

    I don't think she mis-attributed her opinion to me. To me its quite clear who is saying what. 

    Sorry but it wasn't clear to me who was saying what.

    Report message17

  • Message 528

    , in reply to message 527.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    That's because it is my job to screw as much money as humanly possible out of all of them. And I'm frankly amazingly good at it. 

    So Phazer where do you work then?

    Report message18

  • Message 529

    , in reply to message 528.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Nick, please could you clarify for me if the PoV message board is to remain, or is it going too?

    Thanks
    Bruce.

    Report message19

  • Message 530

    , in reply to message 529.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Wednesday, 4th February 2009

    Found this interesting...

    econsultancy.com/blo...

    The key is to link, link. link, and link some more. 

    Which explains why Nick keeps LINKING us to his blog.

    How important is it to respond openly and quickly to criticism, e.g. of linking strategy?

    Very important.

    If it's some kind of bug or technical problem saying "thanks for bringing this to our attention, we're trying to fix it now" gives people reassurance.

    If it's more of an editorial matter responding quickly enables you to give context and correct factual errors.

    The quicker you turn something around the more likely it will not turn into a big problem. Saying "if we don't talk about this it will go away" can result in the problem getting bigger.
     


    and something which falls into the "you couldn't make it up" category.....

    Responding quickly also makes it less likely that mainstream media journalists will make mischief 

    smiley - laugh

    Is there any truth in Ashley Norris' recent remarks that the BBC is hampering the development of blogs and other online media in the UK?

    I hope not. But we do need to get better at linking to and crediting good blog content, especially as some blogs are now better than some of the stuff you read in the papers. 

    Report message20

  • Message 531

    , in reply to message 530.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    "...the PoV message board is to remain, or is it going too?"

    No one has said the POV board is going Bruce.

    Here's the state of play:

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

    Report message21

  • Message 532

    , in reply to message 531.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    That is not the same as answering the question Nick.

    Please comment on this statement:

    The "experiment in open communication" that you are pursuing is a total failure.

    Report message22

  • Message 533

    , in reply to message 532.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    I think this calls for a competition: find the post from Nick where he offers opinion on one of our suggestions. OR find a post where he has answered a question adequately that does not require a re-asking of the question. OR find a post from Nick where has taken on board a suggestion and not forms the basis of a proposal.

    Competition title: Scrapheap Challenge

    Report message23

  • Message 534

    , in reply to message 533.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    should read: "and that forms the basis of a proposal"

    Pesky "no edit" facility. and pesky 3 minute delay facility. Nick, can you fix these issues? No, don't bother replying... we know the answer.

    Report message24

  • Message 535

    , in reply to message 534.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    OK, Here's a first hand experience of 'blog interaction' from my perspective.

    Stuck in traffic on Tuesday evening listening to an article on PM discussing contributions to their blog about the impact of the recent weather chaos. A few things said that I vehemently disagreed with (now there's a thing) so I planned to add a comment.

    The first opportunity I've had to get to the PM blog page was about 5 minutes ago. I've looked at all the comments, I've scrolled up and down the page, I've clicked about a bit and can I find the link to add my comment? Can I snowballs!

    So is this particular topic closed now then (seems a bit premature) or do I not have the necessary IT skills to find the link on the page? Or is it just that the "Sony Gold award winning best interactive programme etc etc" is not really, well...that interactive?

    If PM had a notice board I'd be straight on there. If perhaps, as I often wish, the BBC put a link to a comment page against each news article, I'd be on there. As it is I just sit here and fume and plan what I'm going to spend next years licence fee on when I dump the TV and switch to purely online content, which on the whole is better organised than the BBC's 90M quid’s worth of online output.

    If that’s your idea of interactive blogging Nick, you can stick it up your twitter as far as I’m concerned.

    Report message25

  • Message 536

    , in reply to message 535.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    And of course, as my dear wife explained to me, there used to be a message board for weather discussions. And that disappeared in a puff (or should that be cloud) of smoke a couple of years ago.

    They have a very strange interpretation of interactivity at the Castle....

    Report message26

  • Message 537

    , in reply to message 536.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    apparently there is a new weather blog! launched to day.

    The BBC doesn't do oined up thinking.

    Report message27

  • Message 538

    , in reply to message 537.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Its a problem with web 'designers' a lot these days. In the early days of the internet everything was designed from the outset by those of us who had no expectations of the browsing public. So everything had to be made obvious and user friendly.

    These days there's an assumption made by IT professionals and new web designers, most of whom have grown up with the web, that we all just *know* how it works.

    Time and again I have to say to designers, can we have this made more obvious, or a big button there saying press me to do X. The usual answer is that browsers will just *know* how to find specific links by clicking about or hovering the mouse. I think its more to do with them not wanting to spoil their lovely design with anything so mundane as an obvious point of interaction.

    Take for example the BBC news pages. If you run one of their embedded video clips they finish with a screen that says 'more like this'. They give text and image descriptions of other similar content. You hover the mouse over these 'links' and the mouse changes to a finger pointer. But the links don't work. You have to look below the video box at specific text links with the same description to go to the content. Daft!

    Same thing on the BBC front page for main programme promos. There are a series of tabs at the bottom of the screen but if you click on the tab for the programme that is currently showing in the big picture above it doesn’t do anything. Its shows as a link in my browser but it doesn't work. You have to click on the big picture above to activate the topic. Granted I haven't tried either of these in Firefox so it may be browser specific, but I bet its not.

    There's loads of this stuff all over the BEEB’s websites. Badly thought out with no real thought for how your average Joe will actually use the site. The iPlayer is another great example of this as we all know. I mean just how long are they going to claim beta status on it before they admit its fundamentally flawed?

    So forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in all these techie-cum-media types having pretty PowerPoint meetings coming up with anything better. Although I'm sure that won’t stop them all patting each other on the back and giving each other awards.

    Report message28

  • Message 539

    , in reply to message 531.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Morning Nick

    "...the PoV message board is to remain, or is it going too?"

    No one has said the POV board is going Bruce.

    Here's the state of play:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... 


    I'm going to try to be extra specially nice to you today - (Meeting with City Council High Heidjins, yesterday showed that there is an epidemic of evasive/non-answering going on, and it is not just you)smiley - doh

    OK, back to the quote above. You SO NEARLY got it right, you know. You answered Bruce by saying that no-one has said the POV is going, BUT, THEN, you LINKED to the blog. Now, Nick, you may think that we are complete numpties, but, you know something, most of us are not.

    When you are at a meeting, (such as you have blogged about) someone will discuss THEIR area of expertise, and the others at the meeting, will then, ask questions, regarding points, which they are unclear about, or not understanding. THAT is what is happening on your blogs and messageboard threads. Think of it as a meeting WITH US, (just carried out online), where you have put down YOUR thoughts and we are now questioning you on the thought process/statistics/background information etc.

    At the meeting you attended with Helen, Roo, Rowan etc when you were discussing various points, if someone asked you a question, did you throw your file on the table and tell them to look through it, and find the relevant answer to their question. NO.

    Firstly, because it would be extremely bad manners.

    Secondly, it would be seen as extraordinarily insulting to those present.

    And thirdly, because, it is easier at a meeting to simply answer the question you are asked, so as to move the discussion along (educating/informing those attending)

    What you did to Bruce above, was to answer the question "would the boards be closing" with an almost direct answer, BUT, then, what you have effectively done, is throw the file (in this case YOUR blog) onto the table/this thread, and told Bruce and other posters to find the relevant information. smiley - doh

    Please will you answer questions without recourse to linking back to blogs we have already read? We are not stupid, BUT, there is a lot of information over FIVE blogs, and we really are still unclear about what you propose to do. I understand that you can't promise something, and then at a later date find you can't deliver, but at the same time, just linking posters back to your blogs, is NOT moving the discussion on - as I say akin to throwing a file on a meeting table and telling those present to find the relevant information for themselves.

    YOU know your thought process, we don't. If you answer a question directly, AND THEN some other poster comes along and asks the same question, it would THEN be right to link back to the answer you had given to the previous poster. What is NOT right, is just to link everyone back to your blog, to rummage through and come out with THEIR perception of what you are saying, instead of simply answering, and clearing up doubts.

    Hope that makes sense, Nick. smiley - rose

    Report message29

  • Message 540

    , in reply to message 539.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    OR find a post where he has answered a question adequately that does not require a re-asking of the question.

    Here you go:

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

    Report message30

  • Message 541

    , in reply to message 540.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Nick,

    How is it user-friendly for us to have to scroll down reams and reams of blog posts to find an answer?

    Could you not just quote the question asked here and reply to it so everyone can see it?

    Report message31

  • Message 542

    , in reply to message 541.

    Posted by cthatcham (U1400828) on Thursday, 5th February 2009


    I agree, Cricket.

    What Nick is doing is just winding everyone up with his abrupt, curt and evasive responses.

    How many times do we have to say to Nick that we don't want to waste our lives scrolling through his interminable blogs to try and find an answer?

    I now have to limit my time spent reading anything to do with this issue, for the sake of my blood pressure!

    Report message32

  • Message 543

    , in reply to message 542.

    Posted by Helen May (U1633128) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    As I said several pages back, it's extremely rude to answer a question posted on here somewhere else.

    Other than getting a hammer to knock the nail in I don't know how else we can get Nick to grasp the point!

    H

    Report message33

  • Message 544

    , in reply to message 540.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    OR find a post where he has answered a question adequately that does not require a re-asking of the question.

    Here you go:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... 


    Ahhhhh BUT Nick

    I am NOT every poster (it may seem like that in a bad dream), BUT, I am ONE person, with MY questions. YOU wrote a blog, answering MY questions. NOT the questions of OTHER posters. THEY still have questions to ask (as do I - discussions move on, and new questions come to mind).

    If you could, please, answer posters' DIRECT questions, with a DIRECT answer, I think we could move this discussion on.

    The simple fact is that I am not the only person in this meeting with you. There are dozens of posters (and probably hundreds of lurkers) who would actually LIKE answers, not links to blogs smiley - doh Did you bother to read my posting above, where I tell you how offensive THAT behaviour would be in one of your meetings. Please do not treat us with such disdain.

    Perhaps you think you are being witty, having fun at our expense, simply linking back to blogs (and no doubt tittering in a corner, at your rascally behaviour To be perfectly honest, it is now descending into the behaviour of someone who reads the Beano. Your behaviour is not worthy of someone in a position of power. You are winding posters up for no reason other than you WILL not answer questions unless by linking posters to your blogs.

    Insulting, degrading, offensive, childish, disdainful, disrespectful, unworthy........

    All words which could be used to describe this infantile behaviour.

    WE are ALL part of this discussion, and much as you may not like it Nick, if you wish to continue this exercise, you WILL have to interact with us.

    It has been pointed out to you (REPEATEDLY) where you are going wrong. I'm afraid that if you continue with this behaviour, you will find yourself on your own.

    We have tried to act as adults and discuss the messageboards. Your constant linking (you really do have to get a grip on this obsession), is not helpful. I have to use links in my job, but, I have to also realise that continual linking, creates "Glazed eye" in those who are reading them. There is only so much text you can read (Nick - go back and read the link you gave us for the words "Argy Bargy" - screeds of words to tell us what an Argy Bargy is smiley - doh NOT helpful, NOT productive, NOT inciteful) Simply a complete pain in the beamend.

    You HAVE answered SOME of my questions in the blog you wrote TO ME, BUT, others HAVE NOT had their questions answered. And then you complain when you are asked the same questions over and over. Just answer them (to the best of your ability - no-one expects perfection, but you really do have to try to get on the FIRST rung)

    You do realise that newspaper journalists are reading these messageboards. Do you honestly think that you are representing BBC well, by constantly linking MESSAGEBOARDERS to BLOGS, and expecting them to find THEIR OWN answers. Several different people can read the same article and as they are reading from different perspectives THEY will all come up with different impressions. ALL we are asking is for YOUR impressions/thought process/decisions. NOT what we perceive YOUR answers to be.

    Have a nice day Nick smiley - rose

    Report message34

  • Message 545

    , in reply to message 543.

    Posted by U13804688 (U13804688) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    as ive said to all you passionate pover's what nick is doing is a carbon copy of what chris russell did on his journey to distroy 606/fans forum.
    he is abrupt rude and evasive..when this is pointed out he gets all sensitive and accuses people of being abusive..he will not answer any difficult questions straight and his natural instincts seem to suggest that the very fact we use messageboards makes us inferior...
    believe me these boards will be ruined before the end of the summer...

    Report message35

  • Message 546

    , in reply to message 540.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    <>

    Well done Nick, you are currently in the lead of "Scrapheap Challenge". Can anyone find another post that meets the competition criteria?

    PS Nick I have put the my original clipping in quotes as your post failed to show that. is their a quote system on your MB design?

    Report message36

  • Message 547

    , in reply to message 540.

    Posted by jTemplar (U13714316) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    At www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    NickReynolds wrote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    OR find a post where he has answered a question adequately that does not require a re-asking of the question.

    Here you go:

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

    where Nick blogs:
    Just before Xmas niclaramartin asked a number of questions in a comment on my previous blog post.

    Rather than writing another long comment I thought I would answer them in a new blog post. Nicalamartin's questions are in italics.

    1. Why has Points of View programme stopped "advertising" the POV messageboard?

    Points of View hasn't stopped advertising the message board. At the end of each show and often in the body of the programme Jeremy Vine refers to the POV website and the messageboard.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is true - Jeremy Vine says we could get to the messageboard by going to www.bbc.co.uk/pov... "so there's no problem getting in touch", as I mentioned in my post of Dec 4, 2008 at www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    I pointed out in my post that the link does not work.

    dave replied "This link stopped working 2 or 3 months ago after a change on the BBC website, I have mentioned it on here several times but obviously no-one from the BBC reads the MB".

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    NickReynolds responded, "I'll look into this."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    4 Weeks Ago when the link was still not going to the messageboards, I again posted to the thread reporting same.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    NickReynolds responded, "I will chase this again."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    The www.bbc.co.uk/pov... url still does not go to where Jeremy Vine said it would.

    So, well done Nick for answering a question adequately that does not require a re-asking of the question. smiley - steam smiley - steam smiley - steam

    john

    ... leaves the room to go to The Guardian, Daily Mail, BBC Blogs, Twitter, and numerous other places to continue this conversation.

    smiley - llabwons smiley - snowball smiley - llabwons smiley - snowball

    Even the bloody smilies don't work now!

    Report message37

  • Message 548

    , in reply to message 547.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Maybe someone's in there pulling plugs already.

    Might be the same person that appears to have messed up the email responders to various shows on 6Music, such as Gideon Coe.

    £90M per year and at least one problem every day. Maybe they need a Venn diagram or another meeting or a PP presentation or a new laptop with 'BBC slightly grey ops' on it before they can really get down to the nuts and bolts of making the thing work.

    In the meantime they can filly fally around the periphery thinking of new things to break that were working fine before.

    Its all go in the BEEB innit?

    Report message38

  • Message 549

    , in reply to message 548.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Did Nick ever answer and tell us what BBC Black Ops. meant? Maybe a BBC project to get Carole Thatcher off the air?

    Report message39

  • Message 550

    , in reply to message 549.

    Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Well it was actually Jem who was supposed to be explaining that one, being as its him that seems to like posting pictures of his 'Black ops' laptop up on the web.

    Presumably he's making some sort of point but doesn't seem to be too forcoming on what it is.

    Funny that.

    Report message40

  • Message 551

    , in reply to message 550.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Nick

    Have you given any more thought to the question of closing the Radio board? Think Geoff (in particular) put forward some good arguments for retention until you can look into the matter in more depth.

    Please don't link me to a blog,smiley - doh or I may start just linking you to my questions/opinions instead of phrasing them with words.smiley - smiley smiley - laugh

    A simple, "I may have to rethink the Radio board closure", or "I am still thinking of closing the Radio board". smiley - ok

    Thank you
    niclaramartin

    P.S. Are you practicing your Quote function exercises? Once you've mastered that, we can move on to "Over-use of linking, and the detrimental effects on your credibility as a communicator (Volume 2)". Open University 1972. The first part of the lesson is finding the link to it. smiley - ok

    Report message41

  • Message 552

    , in reply to message 551.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Do we need tags?? smiley - laugh

    Report message42

  • Message 553

    , in reply to message 552.

    Posted by niclaramartin (U1621265) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK

    May we have more smileys, on our IMPROVED messageboards?

    cricket

    smiley - winkeye

    Report message43

  • Message 554

    , in reply to message 529.

    Posted by Bruce the Barbarian (U3520602) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Nick, please could you clarify for me if the PoV message board is to remain, or is it going too? 
    OK, thanks for replying but the emphasis was on 'clarify'.


    No one has said the POV board is going Bruce. 
    And no one has said it *isn't* going, have they? smiley - erm
    I have read the contents of the link in it's entirety and still remain unconvinced of any surety of the PoV board remaining.

    Report message44

  • Message 555

    , in reply to message 554.

    Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Bruce, I think that the summary of that meeting implied that the POV board would remain, but potentially only linked to TV forums. Everything else looks decidedly as if it's hanging by a thread, without any suitable replacement even being discussed.



    Report message45

  • Message 556

    , in reply to message 554.

    Posted by OfficerDibble (U1158251) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    That was my point too Bruce.

    Do you remember the Yes and No game on "Take your Pick"?

    Michael Miles: "Will the Radio board be closed?"
    Contestant: "No one has said that the POV boards will close."
    Michael Miles: "Will the Radio board be closed?"
    Contestant: "I have not discussed the closure of all the POV boards."
    Michael Miles: "Will any of the POV boards be closed?"
    Contestant: "In my blog I said a decision has not been made."
    Michael Miles: "Have you discussed the option of the Radio board being closed?"
    Contestant: "Clearly, I can't make any guarantees about what may happen in the future."
    Michael Miles: "Will the Radio board be closed?"
    Contestant: "We have a plan for an enhanced communication channel for Radio.
    Michael Miles: "But will the Radio board be closed?"
    Contestant: "We have a plan for improvements to Blogs and Messageboards."
    Michael Miles: "Will the Radio board be closed?"
    Contestant: "I did not say betamax."

    Report message46

  • Message 557

    , in reply to message 556.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    smiley - laugh

    Fab!

    Reminds me of a Paxman interview.

    Report message47

  • Message 558

    , in reply to message 556.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Let me try and be absolutely clear.

    "Will the Radio board be closed?"

    The clearest answer I can give at this point is "I don't know".

    I haven't given this any more thought because I am waiting to see if the suggestions about the POV boards being run by television are taken up.

    If they are, then I and my colleagues will start thinking about the radio board.

    Report message48

  • Message 559

    , in reply to message 558.

    Posted by Professor Techno (U3287342) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Nick when is Tom going to make an appearence

    Report message49

  • Message 560

    , in reply to message 558.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Thursday, 5th February 2009

    Thanks Nick. smiley - smiley

    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

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.