You are characterising their views in a particular way that is not entirely justified or constructive. (Though bear in mind my previous comments regarding the perceived treasonous behaviour of the BBC).
.
Ian's post was TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.
ANYONE who disagrees with the "Tv resistance" standpoint is accused of being a "bully buy" a "scum" or "Stifling debate".
You think it's ok to be like that as long as you agree with their agenda!
As for "stifling debate", the WHOLE POINT of a debate is to have more than one point of view, otherwise it ISN'T a debate!
So, apparently, engaging in debate is now "stifling debate"!
The purpose of the formula was to try to get over the point that you have so far been unwilling to accept, that if there is zero positive benefit to something and even a small disbenefit, then the likelihood is that given a free choice, people will decide not to do it.
so as a formula, it really served no purpose whatsoever then.
And can we not go down the "stopping the letters" line, again, please. The letters can be stopped in other ways, and it is only "TVL"'s deliberate misinformation that prevents every affected person from knowing that.
all of which assumes that people are incapable or unwilling to be co-operative and/or appreciate the circumstances in which tvl operate.
it remains unclear why you insist on making that assumption on behalf of everyone in the same situation as you.
There is no point to deflect. I do not agree with you that there is any benefit to the home search, from the standpoint of someone who is LLF. There's really no more to add.
the point that your formula was a total crock.
I'm not sure they've used the word "troll". I think that what they are recognising is that this place is hostile to negative views about the BBC, and that by airing such views here, there is an expectation about how the "usual suspects" will react. Generally, I've found that they are not disappointed.
oh come on! there is open talk of going to other forums with the specific intention of stirring things up, and trying to bait / wind up people.
and please - stop confusing disagreement with hostility. people have suggested that the DS mods are in on some sort of pro BBC thing, which explains why such posters tend to get more bans. as far as i can tell, that's more paranoid nonsense, and the actual reason is more likely to be their lack of manners / blatant trolling than any DS / BBC conspiracy.
You are characterising their views in a particular way that is not entirely justified or constructive. (Though bear in mind my previous comments regarding the perceived treasonous behaviour of the BBC).
its entirely justified!
"I think a lot of people would agree with me on the fact that the BBC pay people to troll forums and stand up against anybody that critisizes the BBC."
"A weird thought just occurred to me: is it possible that several people are taking it in turns to monitor DS (and possibly other sites' forums such as here and the BBCresistance site) - ie working in teams to give 24hr coverage but sharing UNs & PWs so as to be able to post as opposed to only monitoring? ie There could be several people logging in as "Iain" or as "Mossy" or whoever.
In other words, teams of semi-covert site surveillance working on behalf of the BBC and paid for by them? Jesus-positively Orwellian!"
"The more you study it, the more you are convinced that Iain is a corporate identity of BBC defending employees, doing what they are paid to do!
What a waste of Licence payers money."
"Same old BBC Scum upset again"
"Sorry but you are wasting your time with Iain, PeterB, Mikw, mossy2103 & Elasticband. Those scumbags get paid to monitor that site amongst others and it looks like Iain is trying his best to wind you up to get you banned so be careful, people don't last long when they upset the BBC there."
some particularly baffling arithmetic here :
"Dear ol' Iain over at DS has, as of yesterday, a total post count of 49,846; that's 156 more than I'd reported two posts ago on the 25th. Averages to ...wait for it...1.3 (to one decimal place) posts - or to put it in English - 13 posts every 10min round the clock non-stop for the last 5 days!! On one bloody site!! And this means no breaks for showering/having a bath/eating/pooing..err..would you prefer an 'e' in that...in between the 'o' and the 'i' ?...just a thought I thought I'd throw in there, chaps."
In the most basic sense, there is a need for forums that are tolerant to anti-BBC views, whilst there are those that exist that are not. Such views form legitimate opinion, and can sometimes be supported by factual reporting from the industry. In the particular case of "TVL", people come to those forums and are able to get completely impartial and legally sound advice of a sort that tends to get clouded in partisan noise on DS.
The simple question of what options there are for a LLF person seeking to minimise their interaction with "TVL" (which is their right) has provoked all sorts of nonsensical "debate" here. Whilst in the other forums, two or three well-reasoned posts can highlight all of the relevant options and their pros and cons. It is in that area (given "TVL"'s misinformation) that I think they are most valuable.
i'd say that, having looked at those forums (mostly for entertainment purposes), its difficult to take any serious message seriously amongst the sort of childish, paranoid nonsense that runs through them.
and really - what is the obsession with my post count, and the complete inability to realise that there are actually other sections in this forum. as a regular poster in several of those other sections, there's perhaps an irony in that i rarely see anyone else from here posting in them.
ANYONE who disagrees with the "Tv resistance" standpoint is accused of being a "bully buy" a "scum" or "Stifling debate".
You think it's ok to be like that as long as you agree with their agenda!
This isn't about valid opinions.
Their site is dedicated to opposing the LF. Every member opposes it, for reasons they each find wholly valid, both individually and collectively. Why would anyone want to challenge that, if not for the purposes of disrupting the forum?
As for "stifling debate", the WHOLE POINT of a debate is to have more than one point of view, otherwise it ISN'T a debate!
Some of the issues on the LF are matters of fact, or close to. The Resistance forums hold certain facts to be true, based on experience and evidence. There is therefore no point in putting an opposing "view", and again it serves mainly as disruption.
I'm all for debate, but a view that "opposes" an established fact is not particularly helpful - to debate, or to the harmony of a forum.
so as a formula, it really served no purpose whatsoever then.
Still missing the point.
all of which assumes that people are incapable or unwilling to be co-operative and/or appreciate the circumstances in which tvl operate.
Then let "TVL" explain the entire background and legal framework to citizens and then let them make an informed decision.
it remains unclear why you insist on making that assumption on behalf of everyone in the same situation as you.
I'm not. What I consistently say is that in the interim whilst "TVL" is reformed to be consistent with legal principles and the HRA, the first step is total honesty, and supporting citizens in making an informed decision as to whether to co-operate.
In reality, it is your position that is pushing your view onto others - you want "TVL" to continue to obfuscate and mislead so that citizens are denied their rights and their informed decisions.
the point that your formula was a total crock.
... of gold.
oh come on! there is open talk of going to other forums with the specific intention of stirring things up, and trying to bait / wind up people.
And your point is? Are you saying that DS is sacrosanct and needs to be protected from anyone whose views might be controversial or confrontational. I have a feeling it might be too late for that.
and please - stop confusing disagreement with hostility. people have suggested that the DS mods are in on some sort of pro BBC thing, which explains why such posters tend to get more bans. as far as i can tell, that's more paranoid nonsense, and the actual reason is more likely to be their lack of manners / blatant trolling than any DS / BBC conspiracy.
I really can't comment about that.
its entirely justified!
It's their forum (set up by Sao Paulo). You may not like what they say, or how they say it, but it's not clear where you are going with this. What is your aim in commenting on it?
i'd say that, having looked at those forums (mostly for entertainment purposes), its difficult to take any serious message seriously amongst the sort of childish, paranoid nonsense that runs through them.
Personally, I think it is unfortunate, but the other forum being more studious acts as an alternative venue for more considered views.
and really - what is the obsession with my post count, and the complete inability to realise that there are actually other sections in this forum. as a regular poster in several of those other sections, there's perhaps an irony in that i rarely see anyone else from here posting in them.
I really couldn't comment. I guess it's the most obvious thing about a poster, after their username?
If it's not a "fact" then it's at best open to debate, at worst completely wrong to the point of absurd fantasy.
Some of the ideas about the "pro BBC" users on here being some form of astroturfing false flag operation by the BBC are to be quite frank hilarious.
Especially when the figures used to "prove"that someone is obviously a BBC spy are so far out they would fail you in middle school (if not elementary school) maths). Iain for example has averaged about 15 posts per day over the past 10.5 years, I've done many more than that on a board dedicated to a single subject (Ultima Online*), let alone on the whole of the Digitalspy forums which cover verything from broadcasting, to news, to internet, to technical services, to things like books, TV programmes, films and games.
If the LF is so illegal, or the mehtod in which it's enforced is illegal, why doesn't anyone take it to court?
It should be easy enough to do,
*Back when I was playing that, it wasn't uncommon for people to be posting 50+ posts a day whilst playing the game (we used the board to organise things in game, and to simply talk about the game, or talk "toot").
There would, as a minimum, need to be a mechanism to relate the payments to ability to pay.
And whether you like it or not, the nature of Government accounting is that moving expenditure within its scope (whether centrally or locally) does add that amount to the budget, even if it is removed in another sector.
No I do think it's true. You are clearly not seeking a solution, you are seeking an outcome. One which fits with your view of what the BBC should be.
..and council tax should do that.
It has nothing to do whether I like it?
The point is you have previously claimed the government would have to find more money, which is not true. You still seem a bit confused by the issue.
Yes the budget may increase, but so does the income! So there is no issue.
Someone on the "resistance" forum has had a virtually identical experience with their partner, too.
What you don't seem to understand is that your "over-reaction" is simply the normal reaction of a person who is not familiar with the deceit implicit in the way "TVL" work.
.
Erm, no it isn't normal.
She clearly over reacted.
You went on to explain that the husband, who knew they did not need a license, couldn't explain to the woman that it wasn't required.
She clearly could not rationalise the information being presented to her. Thats not TVLs fault.
She will clearly have issues dealing with any officialdom
i haven't missed the point at all - the point remains that you made up some lame ass formula that had no bearing on reality when you entered figures into that formula.
Then let "TVL" explain the entire background and legal framework to citizens and then let them make an informed decision.
I'm not. What I consistently say is that in the interim whilst "TVL" is reformed to be consistent with legal principles and the HRA, the first step is total honesty, and supporting citizens in making an informed decision as to whether to co-operate.
In reality, it is your position that is pushing your view onto others - you want "TVL" to continue to obfuscate and mislead so that citizens are denied their rights and their informed decisions.
my view is that to reasonable, co-operartive people who appreciate what tvl are doing, and the circumstances in which they operate, the knowledge that they could choose to be unco-operative is, to them, likely to be something of a moot point.
... of gold.
not really, no.
And your point is? Are you saying that DS is sacrosanct and needs to be protected from anyone whose views might be controversial or confrontational. I have a feeling it might be too late for that.
I really can't comment about that.
It's their forum (set up by Sao Paulo). You may not like what they say, or how they say it, but it's not clear where you are going with this. What is your aim in commenting on it?
Personally, I think it is unfortunate, but the other forum being more studious acts as an alternative venue for more considered views.
you're missing my point here i think. its not so much about your view of those forums per se.
i just think you've got a bit of a nerve to, on the one hand, say there's a place for them, but have a go at posters here for stifling debate when posters here are perfectly civil and reasonable, and posters there are often rude, paranoid and to put it politely, incredibly childish.
I really couldn't comment. I guess it's the most obvious thing about a poster, after their username?
which says what exactly?
as it happens i work long hours, homeworking in IT and have this site on in the background. most posts take less than a minute to write, so 15 posts a day doesn't seem that much.
quite why it continues to be point of interest says a lot more about those who see it as a point of interest, as it does about me.
and you say you can't comment, but i'm pretty sure i saw a post by yourself saying i was a troll. again, disagreeing with you does not actually make me a troll.
Something is close to being fact if any alternative explanation defies common sense. There's also a bunch of unproveable negatives that are nevertheless clearly true. (That's especially the case around legislation, which is obviously relevant here).
If it's not a "fact" then it's at best open to debate, at worst completely wrong to the point of absurd fantasy.
You cannot really debate a "fact". What you do is post alternative explanations based on alternative sets of evidence. There is rarely independent evidence cited in pro-LF posts.
If the LF is so illegal, or the mehtod in which it's enforced is illegal, why doesn't anyone take it to court? It should be easy enough to do,
If you think that, then you do not understand the law. There are two main ways to instigate action. Option 1 is to evade the LF, wait until "TVL" catch you and then begin to defend youself by attacking their system. There would be significant cost. Option 2 is to plough an even larger sum of money into some kind of free-standing action. I am looking at doing that eventually, but the costs are prohibitive unless they can be underwritten by a wealthy sponsor and/or pro bono legal work.
No I do think it's true. You are clearly not seeking a solution, you are seeking an outcome. One which fits with your view of what the BBC should be.
We all have our views of what the BBC could or should be (even if that view is for it to stay as it is) such that it serves the country in ways that we think are desirable. Your suggestion that my view on that is unacceptable whilst everyone else's (I presume) are acceptable is not appropriate to this forum. All views should be tolerated and respected.
The point is you have previously claimed the government would have to find more money, which is not true. You still seem a bit confused by the issue.
I have not said that. It is you that is confused.
Yes the budget may increase, but so does the income! So there is no issue.
That is the issue. In the case where the BBC is funded from GT or CT, public expenditure is seen to rise by £3bn (or whatever amount is agreed). The fact that it is balanced by increased taxation is irrelevant.
i haven't missed the point at all - the point remains that you made up some lame ass formula that had no bearing on reality when you entered figures into that formula.
But you assumed you could enter figures without understanding the constraints, or indeed, what the unit of risk-benefit "actually" is.
my view is that to reasonable, co-operartive people who appreciate what tvl are doing, and the circumstances in which they operate, the knowledge that they could choose to be unco-operative is, to them, likely to be something of a moot point.
Indeed, you are pushing on to people who you do not know this label of being reasonable and co-operative. My experience is that everyone who finds out that "TVL" have lied to them stops their co-operation straightaway.
i just think you've got a bit of a nerve to, on the one hand, say there's a place for them, but have a go at posters here for stifling debate when posters here are perfectly civil and reasonable, and posters there are often rude, paranoid and to put it politely, incredibly childish.
Different forums, different rules. If you want to start an independent forum where people can be rude, paranoid and childish, go ahead. In the meantime, this is a relatively civil place, and the resistance forums will continue to resist.
and you say you can't comment, but i'm pretty sure i saw a post by yourself saying i was a troll. again, disagreeing with you does not actually make me a troll.
I think not. I probably said that you always had a rebuttal even against things that were patently obvious.
You went on to explain that the husband, who knew they did not need a license, couldn't explain to the woman that it wasn't required.
She clearly could not rationalise the information being presented to her. Thats not TVLs fault.
She will clearly have issues dealing with any officialdom
I think it's more like her not believing him when "TVL" carried out their threat of sending someone round, combined with her not understanding their AV installation well enough to be able to justify it to "TVL", as she felt she would ultimately have to do.
As I said, the original claim was that no one bought licences they did not need, and we now have two accounts of exactly that.
But you assumed you could enter figures without understanding the constraints, or indeed, what the unit of risk-benefit "actually" is.
oh come on!
you posted the following formula :
Risk Analysis = Disbenefit / Benefit.
the way formulas work, is that you can then enter figures into them to make a calculation.
you gave the example that if benefit = 0, then risk analysis = infinity.
i gave the example, using your formula that if Disbenefit = 60 and Benefit = 30, then Risk Analysis = 2.
this idea that my example doesn't work is down to me not understanding the constraints is a nonsense.
the reason my example doesn't work is because, with all due respect, its dumbass formula that you just made up.
Indeed, you are pushing on to people who you do not know this label of being reasonable and co-operative. My experience is that everyone who finds out that "TVL" have lied to them stops their co-operation straightaway.
i'm not pushing anything on to anybody. i'm simply expressing the opinion that i believe a great number of people will be perfectly reasonable and prepared to be cooperative.
whereas you seem to want to insist that anybody, aware of the fact that they don't have to cooperate would almost certainly choose to be uncooperative.
Different forums, different rules. If you want to start an independent forum where people can be rude, paranoid and childish, go ahead. In the meantime, this is a relatively civil place, and the resistance forums will continue to resist.
you're still missing my point. i have no problem whatsoever with those forums, and respect people's rights to start any forum they like, and express any opinion they like.
the thing i'm having trouble with is your accusation that myself and other, who are perfectly polite and reasonable, are the ones somehow stifling debate, whilst other people who are clearly rude, paranoid and actively out to shit stir are conducting themselves in a perfectly worthwhile manner.
I think not. I probably said that you always had a rebuttal even against things that were patently obvious.
well, what you said was this :
"I think he's a "sophisticated troll" - someone who's disruptive to debate".
We all have our views of what the BBC could or should be (even if that view is for it to stay as it is) such that it serves the country in ways that we think are desirable. Your suggestion that my view on that is unacceptable whilst everyone else's (I presume) are acceptable is not appropriate to this forum. All views should be tolerated and respected.
t.
Excuse me?!
I have not suggested it is unnacceptable for you to hold your extreme view about the BBC.
My vehement disagreement with your extreme view is absolutely acceptable to be voiced on this forum.
You couldn't possibly be more hypocritical to suggest it is inappropriate for me to voice that opinion.
and before you say it, your previously voiced opinions were not just "a suggestion", they were strongly held beleifs about what should happen.
This is very diiferent to my position. I of course have ideas about what the BBC should do, however I believe they should be moderated with the opinions of others. That is not where you are coming from. What was it you said once, something along the lines of "how much better off we would all be".
Then there is the second issue of all this being, in my opinion, part of your anti BBC agenda. It is important to highlight this when you are publicly campaigning for certain outcomes.
As you said above, you are not interested in actually finding a solution to the supposed issue of collecting the LF, you just want an outcome which makes it more difficult for them to do so and easier to evade.
That is the issue. In the case where the BBC is funded from GT or CT, public expenditure is seen to rise by £3bn (or whatever amount is agreed). The fact that it is balanced by increased taxation is irrelevant.
How can it possibly be irrelevant???
It is funded expenditure.
Joe bloggs in the street already pays the "tax", so it makes no difference, apart from being effectively means tested.
I think it's more like her not believing him when "TVL" carried out their threat of sending someone round, combined with her not understanding their AV installation well enough to be able to justify it to "TVL", as she felt she would ultimately have to do.
As I said, the original claim was that no one bought licences they did not need, and we now have two accounts of exactly that.
Thats not how you described her reaction at all, she went into a complete irrational tizzy.
So she didn't trust what her husband was telling her. OK. Or she couldn't rationalise the information he was telling her, the simple fact that the TV had no means to watch live TV and didn't require a licence...... mmmmm.....really?
Sounds very much about the individuals rather than TVL.
aaaahhhh. Are we back to counting numbers again? Do you want to go down that route about the significance of, what sounds like two cases of dubious merit, amongst millions of contacts?
you're still missing my point. i have no problem whatsoever with those forums, and respect people's rights to start any forum they like, and express any opinion they like.
the thing i'm having trouble with is your accusation that myself and other, who are perfectly polite and reasonable, are the ones somehow stifling debate, whilst other people who are clearly rude, paranoid and actively out to shit stir are conducting themselves in a perfectly worthwhile manner.
well, what you said was this :
"I think he's a "sophisticated troll" - someone who's disruptive to debate".
Iain
What Corn means by "stifling debate" is he objects to people disagreeing with his opinions or demonstrating the information he disseminating is incorrect.
He has shown this attitude in a number of other threads. Above, where he suggests it's it's innapropriate for me to post on this forum in disagreement with his opinion is a classic example.
Their site is dedicated to opposing the LF. Every member opposes it, for reasons they each find wholly valid, both individually and collectively. Why would anyone want to challenge that, if not for the purposes of disrupting the forum?
Some of the issues on the LF are matters of fact, or close to. The Resistance forums hold certain facts to be true, based on experience and evidence. There is therefore no point in putting an opposing "view", and again it serves mainly as disruption.
I'm all for debate, but a view that "opposes" an established fact is not particularly helpful - to debate, or to the harmony of a forum.
Corn, it's opposing views that MAKE UP A DEBATE!!!!!
Without these you have a diatribe and not a debate.
So, if you accuse others of "stiflling debate" when they are actually the ones MAKING A DEBATE, then this wholly wrong.
As is a forum that encourages abuse, which you seem not to mind!:rolleyes:
Actually you did, I had to previously point out that it was "new" money into the GT coffers. I can always find the post if you want.
It's still the same misunderstanding on your part. All public expenditure is funded. What sets the size of the budget is what is being spent.
It's where the whole macro-economic issue of privatisation vs. public service comes from. If nationalisation was a viable option for everything and anything, then why not nationalise everything?
Thats not how you described her reaction at all, she went into a complete irrational tizzy.
Really? You have a vivid imagination. I posted very little detail, and certainly didn't describe her as irrational in any way.
So she didn't trust what her husband was telling her. OK. Or she couldn't rationalise the information he was telling her, the simple fact that the TV had no means to watch live TV and didn't require a licence...... mmmmm.....really?
Sounds very much about the individuals rather than TVL.
And how many similar individuals do you think are out there?
People who have, say, a PS3 in their home, but couldn't really explain to a "TVL" bod what the difference between iPlayer VOD and iPlayer live was. Nor for that matter, confidently contradict the "TVL" bod if they said a licence was required for both.
aaaahhhh. Are we back to counting numbers again? Do you want to go down that route about the significance of, what sounds like two cases of dubious merit, amongst millions of contacts?
The number is irrelevant. Someone had previously stated (as a fact) that no one ever bought a licence they didn't need. We now have proof that that is not true.
Let's just say that most people don't but licences they don't need, and leave it at that.
I have not suggested it is unnacceptable for you to hold your extreme view about the BBC.
Then why keep coming back to your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said? If not to try to discredit, unfairly, something that you disagree with?
My vehement disagreement with your extreme view is absolutely acceptable to be voiced on this forum.
You couldn't possibly be more hypocritical to suggest it is inappropriate for me to voice that opinion.
If your representation of my views was accurate, you might have a point. You lose that the minute you decide to systematically misrepresent me.
and before you say it, your previously voiced opinions were not just "a suggestion", they were strongly held beleifs about what should happen.
On what basis? Show me any post (on any forum) where I have said that.
This is very diiferent to my position. I of course have ideas about what the BBC should do, however I believe they should be moderated with the opinions of others.
That's your prerogative, but let's not pretend it is a pre-requisite to stating a view.
What was it you said once, something along the lines of "how much better off we would all be".
Nice spin. Someone (iain) once had a habit of perpertually asking how much better off we would all be without the BBC. My answer (factually and ironically) was £145.50 per year.
Then there is the second issue of all this being, in my opinion, part of your anti BBC agenda. It is important to highlight this when you are publicly campaigning for certain outcomes.
And you don't think that's hostile and unnecessary? Especially since it isn't even true.
As you said above, you are not interested in actually finding a solution to the supposed issue of collecting the LF,
No - I didn't say that. I think my post was pretty clear, and what it meant was that I didn't see it as my responsibility to come up with solutions to the mess that the BBC has created.
you just want an outcome which makes it more difficult for them to do so and easier to evade.
No - I didn't say that, either.
In fact, I am on record as stating that one of the issues with the BBC's mess is that it doesn't have an effective mechanism to deal with hardened evaders. That's one of the reasons (I think) why the poor, disorganised and ill-informed are so disproportionately represented amongst court cases for evasion.
Comments
Which is nothing to do with Scams!:D
Ian's post was TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.
ANYONE who disagrees with the "Tv resistance" standpoint is accused of being a "bully buy" a "scum" or "Stifling debate".
You think it's ok to be like that as long as you agree with their agenda!
As for "stifling debate", the WHOLE POINT of a debate is to have more than one point of view, otherwise it ISN'T a debate!
So, apparently, engaging in debate is now "stifling debate"!
You've completely lost me now
so as a formula, it really served no purpose whatsoever then.
all of which assumes that people are incapable or unwilling to be co-operative and/or appreciate the circumstances in which tvl operate.
it remains unclear why you insist on making that assumption on behalf of everyone in the same situation as you.
the point that your formula was a total crock.
oh come on! there is open talk of going to other forums with the specific intention of stirring things up, and trying to bait / wind up people.
and please - stop confusing disagreement with hostility. people have suggested that the DS mods are in on some sort of pro BBC thing, which explains why such posters tend to get more bans. as far as i can tell, that's more paranoid nonsense, and the actual reason is more likely to be their lack of manners / blatant trolling than any DS / BBC conspiracy.
its entirely justified!
"I think a lot of people would agree with me on the fact that the BBC pay people to troll forums and stand up against anybody that critisizes the BBC."
"A weird thought just occurred to me: is it possible that several people are taking it in turns to monitor DS (and possibly other sites' forums such as here and the BBCresistance site) - ie working in teams to give 24hr coverage but sharing UNs & PWs so as to be able to post as opposed to only monitoring? ie There could be several people logging in as "Iain" or as "Mossy" or whoever.
In other words, teams of semi-covert site surveillance working on behalf of the BBC and paid for by them? Jesus-positively Orwellian!"
"The more you study it, the more you are convinced that Iain is a corporate identity of BBC defending employees, doing what they are paid to do!
What a waste of Licence payers money."
"Same old BBC Scum upset again"
"Sorry but you are wasting your time with Iain, PeterB, Mikw, mossy2103 & Elasticband. Those scumbags get paid to monitor that site amongst others and it looks like Iain is trying his best to wind you up to get you banned so be careful, people don't last long when they upset the BBC there."
some particularly baffling arithmetic here :
"Dear ol' Iain over at DS has, as of yesterday, a total post count of 49,846; that's 156 more than I'd reported two posts ago on the 25th. Averages to ...wait for it...1.3 (to one decimal place) posts - or to put it in English - 13 posts every 10min round the clock non-stop for the last 5 days!! On one bloody site!! And this means no breaks for showering/having a bath/eating/pooing..err..would you prefer an 'e' in that...in between the 'o' and the 'i' ?...just a thought I thought I'd throw in there, chaps."
i'd say that, having looked at those forums (mostly for entertainment purposes), its difficult to take any serious message seriously amongst the sort of childish, paranoid nonsense that runs through them.
and really - what is the obsession with my post count, and the complete inability to realise that there are actually other sections in this forum. as a regular poster in several of those other sections, there's perhaps an irony in that i rarely see anyone else from here posting in them.
Iain
Their site is dedicated to opposing the LF. Every member opposes it, for reasons they each find wholly valid, both individually and collectively. Why would anyone want to challenge that, if not for the purposes of disrupting the forum?
Some of the issues on the LF are matters of fact, or close to. The Resistance forums hold certain facts to be true, based on experience and evidence. There is therefore no point in putting an opposing "view", and again it serves mainly as disruption.
I'm all for debate, but a view that "opposes" an established fact is not particularly helpful - to debate, or to the harmony of a forum.
Then let "TVL" explain the entire background and legal framework to citizens and then let them make an informed decision.
I'm not. What I consistently say is that in the interim whilst "TVL" is reformed to be consistent with legal principles and the HRA, the first step is total honesty, and supporting citizens in making an informed decision as to whether to co-operate.
In reality, it is your position that is pushing your view onto others - you want "TVL" to continue to obfuscate and mislead so that citizens are denied their rights and their informed decisions.
... of gold.
And your point is? Are you saying that DS is sacrosanct and needs to be protected from anyone whose views might be controversial or confrontational. I have a feeling it might be too late for that.
I really can't comment about that.
It's their forum (set up by Sao Paulo). You may not like what they say, or how they say it, but it's not clear where you are going with this. What is your aim in commenting on it?
Personally, I think it is unfortunate, but the other forum being more studious acts as an alternative venue for more considered views.
I really couldn't comment. I guess it's the most obvious thing about a poster, after their username?
It's either proven fact or it's not.
If it's not a "fact" then it's at best open to debate, at worst completely wrong to the point of absurd fantasy.
Some of the ideas about the "pro BBC" users on here being some form of astroturfing false flag operation by the BBC are to be quite frank hilarious.
Especially when the figures used to "prove"that someone is obviously a BBC spy are so far out they would fail you in middle school (if not elementary school) maths). Iain for example has averaged about 15 posts per day over the past 10.5 years, I've done many more than that on a board dedicated to a single subject (Ultima Online*), let alone on the whole of the Digitalspy forums which cover verything from broadcasting, to news, to internet, to technical services, to things like books, TV programmes, films and games.
If the LF is so illegal, or the mehtod in which it's enforced is illegal, why doesn't anyone take it to court?
It should be easy enough to do,
*Back when I was playing that, it wasn't uncommon for people to be posting 50+ posts a day whilst playing the game (we used the board to organise things in game, and to simply talk about the game, or talk "toot").
No I do think it's true. You are clearly not seeking a solution, you are seeking an outcome. One which fits with your view of what the BBC should be.
..and council tax should do that.
It has nothing to do whether I like it?
The point is you have previously claimed the government would have to find more money, which is not true. You still seem a bit confused by the issue.
Yes the budget may increase, but so does the income! So there is no issue.
Erm, no it isn't normal.
She clearly over reacted.
You went on to explain that the husband, who knew they did not need a license, couldn't explain to the woman that it wasn't required.
She clearly could not rationalise the information being presented to her. Thats not TVLs fault.
She will clearly have issues dealing with any officialdom
Indeed.
i haven't missed the point at all - the point remains that you made up some lame ass formula that had no bearing on reality when you entered figures into that formula.
my view is that to reasonable, co-operartive people who appreciate what tvl are doing, and the circumstances in which they operate, the knowledge that they could choose to be unco-operative is, to them, likely to be something of a moot point.
not really, no.
you're missing my point here i think. its not so much about your view of those forums per se.
i just think you've got a bit of a nerve to, on the one hand, say there's a place for them, but have a go at posters here for stifling debate when posters here are perfectly civil and reasonable, and posters there are often rude, paranoid and to put it politely, incredibly childish.
which says what exactly?
as it happens i work long hours, homeworking in IT and have this site on in the background. most posts take less than a minute to write, so 15 posts a day doesn't seem that much.
quite why it continues to be point of interest says a lot more about those who see it as a point of interest, as it does about me.
and you say you can't comment, but i'm pretty sure i saw a post by yourself saying i was a troll. again, disagreeing with you does not actually make me a troll.
Iain
You cannot really debate a "fact". What you do is post alternative explanations based on alternative sets of evidence. There is rarely independent evidence cited in pro-LF posts.
If you think that, then you do not understand the law. There are two main ways to instigate action. Option 1 is to evade the LF, wait until "TVL" catch you and then begin to defend youself by attacking their system. There would be significant cost. Option 2 is to plough an even larger sum of money into some kind of free-standing action. I am looking at doing that eventually, but the costs are prohibitive unless they can be underwritten by a wealthy sponsor and/or pro bono legal work.
I have not said that. It is you that is confused.
That is the issue. In the case where the BBC is funded from GT or CT, public expenditure is seen to rise by £3bn (or whatever amount is agreed). The fact that it is balanced by increased taxation is irrelevant.
Indeed, you are pushing on to people who you do not know this label of being reasonable and co-operative. My experience is that everyone who finds out that "TVL" have lied to them stops their co-operation straightaway.
Different forums, different rules. If you want to start an independent forum where people can be rude, paranoid and childish, go ahead. In the meantime, this is a relatively civil place, and the resistance forums will continue to resist.
I think not. I probably said that you always had a rebuttal even against things that were patently obvious.
As I said, the original claim was that no one bought licences they did not need, and we now have two accounts of exactly that.
oh come on!
you posted the following formula :
Risk Analysis = Disbenefit / Benefit.
the way formulas work, is that you can then enter figures into them to make a calculation.
you gave the example that if benefit = 0, then risk analysis = infinity.
i gave the example, using your formula that if Disbenefit = 60 and Benefit = 30, then Risk Analysis = 2.
this idea that my example doesn't work is down to me not understanding the constraints is a nonsense.
the reason my example doesn't work is because, with all due respect, its dumbass formula that you just made up.
i'm not pushing anything on to anybody. i'm simply expressing the opinion that i believe a great number of people will be perfectly reasonable and prepared to be cooperative.
whereas you seem to want to insist that anybody, aware of the fact that they don't have to cooperate would almost certainly choose to be uncooperative.
you're still missing my point. i have no problem whatsoever with those forums, and respect people's rights to start any forum they like, and express any opinion they like.
the thing i'm having trouble with is your accusation that myself and other, who are perfectly polite and reasonable, are the ones somehow stifling debate, whilst other people who are clearly rude, paranoid and actively out to shit stir are conducting themselves in a perfectly worthwhile manner.
well, what you said was this :
"I think he's a "sophisticated troll" - someone who's disruptive to debate".
Iain
Excuse me?!
I have not suggested it is unnacceptable for you to hold your extreme view about the BBC.
My vehement disagreement with your extreme view is absolutely acceptable to be voiced on this forum.
You couldn't possibly be more hypocritical to suggest it is inappropriate for me to voice that opinion.
and before you say it, your previously voiced opinions were not just "a suggestion", they were strongly held beleifs about what should happen.
This is very diiferent to my position. I of course have ideas about what the BBC should do, however I believe they should be moderated with the opinions of others. That is not where you are coming from. What was it you said once, something along the lines of "how much better off we would all be".
Then there is the second issue of all this being, in my opinion, part of your anti BBC agenda. It is important to highlight this when you are publicly campaigning for certain outcomes.
As you said above, you are not interested in actually finding a solution to the supposed issue of collecting the LF, you just want an outcome which makes it more difficult for them to do so and easier to evade.
Actually you did, I had to previously point out that it was "new" money into the GT coffers. I can always find the post if you want.
How can it possibly be irrelevant???
It is funded expenditure.
Joe bloggs in the street already pays the "tax", so it makes no difference, apart from being effectively means tested.
Thats not how you described her reaction at all, she went into a complete irrational tizzy.
So she didn't trust what her husband was telling her. OK. Or she couldn't rationalise the information he was telling her, the simple fact that the TV had no means to watch live TV and didn't require a licence...... mmmmm.....really?
Sounds very much about the individuals rather than TVL.
aaaahhhh. Are we back to counting numbers again? Do you want to go down that route about the significance of, what sounds like two cases of dubious merit, amongst millions of contacts?
What Corn means by "stifling debate" is he objects to people disagreeing with his opinions or demonstrating the information he disseminating is incorrect.
He has shown this attitude in a number of other threads. Above, where he suggests it's it's innapropriate for me to post on this forum in disagreement with his opinion is a classic example.
Corn, it's opposing views that MAKE UP A DEBATE!!!!!
Without these you have a diatribe and not a debate.
So, if you accuse others of "stiflling debate" when they are actually the ones MAKING A DEBATE, then this wholly wrong.
As is a forum that encourages abuse, which you seem not to mind!:rolleyes:
It's where the whole macro-economic issue of privatisation vs. public service comes from. If nationalisation was a viable option for everything and anything, then why not nationalise everything?
And how many similar individuals do you think are out there?
People who have, say, a PS3 in their home, but couldn't really explain to a "TVL" bod what the difference between iPlayer VOD and iPlayer live was. Nor for that matter, confidently contradict the "TVL" bod if they said a licence was required for both.
The number is irrelevant. Someone had previously stated (as a fact) that no one ever bought a licence they didn't need. We now have proof that that is not true.
Let's just say that most people don't but licences they don't need, and leave it at that.
If your representation of my views was accurate, you might have a point. You lose that the minute you decide to systematically misrepresent me.
On what basis? Show me any post (on any forum) where I have said that.
That's your prerogative, but let's not pretend it is a pre-requisite to stating a view.
Nice spin. Someone (iain) once had a habit of perpertually asking how much better off we would all be without the BBC. My answer (factually and ironically) was £145.50 per year.
And you don't think that's hostile and unnecessary? Especially since it isn't even true.
No - I didn't say that. I think my post was pretty clear, and what it meant was that I didn't see it as my responsibility to come up with solutions to the mess that the BBC has created.
No - I didn't say that, either.
In fact, I am on record as stating that one of the issues with the BBC's mess is that it doesn't have an effective mechanism to deal with hardened evaders. That's one of the reasons (I think) why the poor, disorganised and ill-informed are so disproportionately represented amongst court cases for evasion.