Ever feel some posters on the BBC site are idiots?

[Sput]

I like this post. It has "don't insult someone over the internet" followed by a list of insults over the internet. I do, however, find it interesting that despite a number of counter-points in my post, you don't actually address any of them in your latest one. Reading your last post as an outsider to this conversation, can you really say you're not guilty of the very things you just said about me?

[Mozo]

Fair enough, but as making serious points just resulted in my being called a fat paranoid wanker I assumed you just wanted a slanging match.

Seems a bit pointless for me to pick up on your points when you obviously have no intention of moving outside your own mindset, preferring rather to rely on insults and groundless stereotyping than reasoned argument.

I'm happy with either approach really, although I think the reciprocal insults may get a bit boring after a while.

[Sput]

Pointless/hard. Same difference I guess.

After all, we don't do HARD things. It would damage our sense of entitlement!

[Mozo]

Well posting in non sequiturs isn’t really going to get us anywhere either.

I don’t really see anything in your last post that responded to my points. You just used them as jumping off points for name calling.

But OK if you really do want to discuss the issue then tell me why do you think the BBC new media and technology group would choose to name themselves after the practice of covert, deniable, espionage. Out of all the smartarsed names they could have picked they went for that one. But you still think there’s no subtext. Even if its a joke, they still think its got some sort of relevance to what they are doing.

And why does only one person from the group appear to be using it? He obviously thinks what he’s doing is akin to Black Ops. If he called his group KKK would that have been OK? Would that not have suggested anything slightly worrying to you?

But suggesting what they are doing is akin to such practices as extraordinary rendition, governmental manipulation and subversive behavior is OK is it?

There are plenty of other monikers they could have chosen, so why that one, if its not making some sort of point?

[Sput]

I really would go with the supposition of "They're obviously geeks, and they think it sounded cool". They're probably in the same camp as the scores of people who have also named their group/product "Black Ops" because they think it sounded cool, not because of some ideological approval of extraordinary renditions and all the rest. There might well be a sensible story behind the origin of the name too for all we know! All you have there is a geek with a sticker. You're reading way too much into it - not least that it's plastered all over the place.

Why is this the less sensible set of circumstances to you?

[cdd]

EDIT: Just noticed Sput has said rather similar things to me already. I guess a paranoid person would say I just go around following Sput and copying whatever he says so I can never be wrong! But no, I did type this concurrently because I got that nice "Edit" notice.
-----

Well blackops is obviously an in-joke so you aren't really in a position to say with any certainty what it means. Maybe if you asked Jem Stone in a decent manner instead of running around implying he's worse than Hitler he might tell you where the idea came from. But if you want my personal guess I'd just say it's due to the highly cutting edge "alpha" nature of their work. Personally I'm pleased by it - it shows he's passionate about his job and also has a sense of humour.

Why would the guy have a big sticker saying Blackops that he carries around in public places and uploads to the Internet if that were actually what he were about? You see, it's called irony. That's why it's funny.

But convincing someone that they're being paranoid is a lost cause for the simple reason that every denial equals an affirmation, it just depends how many levels of deception you want to go up. I concede it's a possibility this person has a sticker to try and make people think it's a joke while all along it's a big double bluff... it's just not very likely, really, is it, when he could just have no sticker and fly under the radar avoiding the hounding of people like yourself?

[Mozo]

Maybe if you asked Jem Stone in a decent manner instead of running around implying he's worse than Hitler he might tell you where the idea came from.

Funny you should mention that. I and a lot of other people on the BBC message boards have. We first asked him here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb6music/F1950 ... ad=6315032

and then after he closed that thread, for no apparent reason, I asked him again here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb6music/F1950 ... ad=6326592

And what I got for an answer was silence. On top of the silence, I was placed on immediate pre-mod which restricts my right to reply. Paranoid? Possibly, but that doesn't mean he's not out to silence any reference to his 'Black Op' activities.

If it was a perfectly innocent reference, why hasn't he responded to either thread? He's a BBC employee after all, and supposedly a host to the boards concerned. Why has he tried to silence every reference to it, even though its in the public domain (as you have all pointed out).

He's actually *supposed* to be the host of the message board. Instead he's avoided any opportunity to respond, even to just say it was a joke. So forgive me if I draw my own conclusion that its a reference to something a little more sinister.

You have a nice Messageboard here. OK I've stomped in with my size nines and you've all given me a good kicking as a result. Perhaps I deserve it. But what Jem Stone and his cronies are *possibly* planning is the wholesale removal of the right to free debate on the BBC site that you and I enjoy in groups like this. The underlying suspicion is that they are out to remove message boards in favour of blogs that give them top down control of anything being discussed.

Even if you think all posters to the BBC MBs are 'idiots' I assume that, being reasonable people, you still defend idiots as having the right to free speech, even if you might not agree with what they are saying. Well perhaps Jem Stone doesn't share that view. Perhaps that's what his self styled moniker refers to. Perhaps I'm wrong.

But its a question worth asking isn't it? And if the man himself is so keen to avoid a reply shouldn’t that be at least a little bit worrying?

[Nini]

Even if you think all posters to the BBC MBs are 'idiots' I assume that, being reasonable people, you still defend idiots as having the right to free speech, even if you might not agree with what they are saying. Well perhaps Jem Stone doesn't share that view. Perhaps that's what his self styled moniker refers to. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I imagine you are wrong, maybe he removed these topics because they're, well, in the wrong venue (yes, really) and also it's a seriously stupid question he shouldn't have to answer. Also, he's human and prone to following his emotions so I wouldn't be surprised he placed you under pre-mod conditions, being in his place I wouldn't want to be pestered about something which is almost innocuous to everyone except a small minority who just have to believe it's some dark conspiracy within the bowels of the Beeb against nobody else but them. Free speech, yes, it should be allowed but the people who own the servers your message boards get held on and managed can say for you to go find someone else to criticise us and give us Catch-22 scenarios every time you post a complaint. Might not like it but it is upto them.

And what I got for an answer was silence. On top of the silence, I was placed on immediate pre-mod which restricts my right to reply. Paranoid? Possibly, but that doesn't mean he's not out to silence any reference to his 'Black Op' activities.

Silence reference to his 'Black Op' activities? You've gone past paranoid and fully believe this bullshit Blackops stuff is true, don't you?

If it was a perfectly innocent reference, why hasn't he responded to either thread? He's a BBC employee after all, and supposedly a host to the boards concerned. Why has he tried to silence every reference to it, even though its in the public domain (as you have all pointed out).

Believe me, I wouldn't either because I probably get a lot of conspiracy theorists all looking as to why I wore a shirt a certain why and how my face was smiling in just a way that was a covert signal to them and it's a stinking nuisance humouring them. Also, it isn't any of your business no matter who employs him and should reserve the right not to answer questions from people with time to burn about nonsense.

He's actually *supposed* to be the host of the message board. Instead he's avoided any opportunity to respond, even to just say it was a joke. So forgive me if I draw my own conclusion that its a reference to something a little more sinister.

I can't, most people would drop it before it got to the point of "maybe it's true, maybe it really IS a Blackops setup" but not you.

You have a nice Messageboard here. OK I've stomped in with my size nines and you've all given me a good kicking as a result. Perhaps I deserve it. But what Jem Stone and his cronies are *possibly* planning is the wholesale removal of the right to free debate on the BBC site that you and I enjoy in groups like this. The underlying suspicion is that they are out to remove message boards in favour of blogs that give them top down control of anything being discussed.

I never see 'free debate' when it comes to it, the vast amount of posts on the comments section about any given thing be it 6music output or the dreaded POV comments are always of the "why aren't you doing it right?" sort where no answer is good enough and nothing will ever come of it besides earache for the hosts there who have to read through self-righteous bullshit and give an answer which is honest but not fully honest if you understand.

I sympathise with them entirely and I believe for you guys it runs a little deeper than mere stickers on laptops or goddamn message boards for crying out loud and after a while you'd rather listen to those who don't have an anti-BBC axe to grind and are middle ground at the very worst.

[Mozo]

So in essence what you are saying is shut up and don't criticise the BBC or its employees no matter what they do.

And if they post up pictures of themselves with possibly dodgy references, the people that pay their wages have no right to ask for an explanation. If we do ask we get gagged and accused of being weirdos.

Do you honestly not see where that sort of behaviour has led in the past? At what point do you make the decision that asking a legitimate question and expecting a reasonable answer deserves simple derision?

I don't know what ‘Black Ops' refers to. I've asked the person that has allied himself to the reference to explain it. He's chosen to dodge the question and hide behind the BBC message board system. If the answer is so innocent then why not just squash my impudence (as you see it) and answer me?

I guess you also believed the WMD dossier before the invasion of Iraq did you? Do you just blindly believe everything the BBC feeds you?

Sorry, your post just stinks of an attitude of “why should we be bothered to explain ourselves to you little people, we have better things to do”. Is that your position then?

I’m not anti-BBC. I am anti-BBC middle management with nothing better to do than invent a stance for themselves that is the antithesis of what the BBC used to stand for. Things like free speech and accountabilty for example. You seem to think that no one should ever stand up and ask what's going on.

Do a bit of research before you start chucking accusations about mate. Things aren’t all as cosy in the corporation as you’d like to believe.

[Nini]

So in essence what you are saying is shut up and don't criticise the BBC or its employees no matter what they do.

Nope.

And if they post up pictures of themselves with possibly dodgy references, the people that pay their wages have no right to ask for an explanation. If we do ask we get gagged and accused of being weirdos.

Why ask at all? If you didn't understand it then big deal, move on.

Do you honestly not see where that sort of behaviour has led in the past? At what point do you make the decision that asking a legitimate question and expecting a reasonable answer deserves simple derision?

What, are you equating this to something much worse? This isn't a revolution you're on about here, this is making a huge deal out of so little.

I’m not anti-BBC...

Stop, you quite plainly are. What is "do you just blindly believe everything the BBC feeds you?" and "things aren’t all as cosy in the corporation as you’d like to believe" supposed to imply? If you wish to debate then alright but for fucks sake do not use faulty logic, lie, create slippery slope fallacies or contradict yourself in the same post, all of which you've done since you came here for no good reason but to debate hollowly.

I want to continue but I won't because do I really want to open the Pandora's Box? Nah, niceties are good and all but if you're not going to be upfront about your seething opprobrium then there's no point debating when you can't keep your shit straight. Sput, take over darling, there's a good chap.

[Gavin Scott]

I confess I haven't fully read the preceding posts, as it all looks terribly wordy for what strikes me as something terribly simple.

This "Black Ops" sticker on a laptop - lets get to the cut and thrust - its a sticker on a laptop.

Should one read malice or something equally sinister into that, or dismiss it as a media geek's bit of post-ironic humour?

I would go for the latter.

If you don't - and I gather you don't, Mozo (welcome to Metropol, by the way), then by all means question it.

But why question it on the message boards which are, in essence, a place to share views on the output?

If you really feel a sense of ownership, i.e. you pay and have a right to say, then email the manager of the Department in question and put it to him that you feel its, at best, inappropriate. He may say, "yes - it could be seen as sending an odd signal" and have a word. He may say, "Its a bit of fun, and the picture was neither sanctioned nor released by the BBC". But I think at that stage you should, reasonably, accept you have been given the answer.

In truth, you and I pay for so much in taxes and whatnot we can claim to own everything; but I think its a bit needless to refer to it as if you signed off the payroll yourself. I mean, good grief.

An organisation being publicly accountable doesn't necessarily entitle you to a hire and fire seat on the board when it comes to matters of HR and personnel. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

But I do see your frustration at being "dismissed" by those who simply think you're over-reacting. You're clearly articulate and focussed, so I think you're probably not over-reacting - but I would humbly suggest that its *so* unlikely to have been motivated by anything other than creative fun, that perhaps your fight against "middle-management" would be much more effectively directed at a more worthy example.