Metropol

And he's quite happy for them to be up because AS HE HAS EXPLAINED TO YOU they are an in-joke that any other geeks in similar professions, or anyone working for the BBC in a similar capacity, might find funny.

I think you're missing the point here. The term is prejudicial. Its not appropriate to his or anyone in his department's position. All he's done is confirm that there is a flippant attitude within his department to the work they are supposed to be doing. Moreover that whomever thought up the whole thing thinks that there's something funny about the term Black Ops and how it relates to what they are doing. He hasn't EXAPLINED anything. He's just latched on to the first excuse you gave him on your list of options in your 'poll'.

OK then. If I've been wrong all along about poor old Jem. He's made his debut here and he's explained that it was someone else guv. Ok then, who? I'm happy to take it up with them.

Lets see if he posts up this person's name.

In the meantime I'm prepared to take an offer on this car.

Oh and BTW I don’t watch TV at all. The waves it gives off interfere with my brain.

OH MY FUCKING GOD?!??!!? I can't actually believe you're delving this far into it. You dont have to "take it up" with anybody - do you not have anything more worthwhile to complain about rather than persecuting members of BBC staff?

"Inappropriate"? How so? It could be that "BBC BlackOps" is an ironic statement - given that what they're doing might be a bit mundane, rather than the relative excitement of BlackOps.

Can you stop bringing up this odd metaphor of the used car salesman? It's not relevant to this discussion.

This is giving me a headache.

Jump out whilst you can James, do not fight with a blindfolded man with both his arms tied behind his back.

James H wrote:OH MY FUCKING GOD?!??!!? I can't actually believe you're delving this far into it. You dont have to "take it up" with anybody - do you not have anything more worthwhile to complain about rather than persecuting members of BBC staff?

Apparently not. Sorry. You see it as persecuting, I see it as finding out what's going on in a publicly funded corporation that for example recently gave nearly a million quids worth of free advertising to a bloated rock band.

"Inappropriate"? How so? It could be that "BBC BlackOps" is an ironic statement - given that what they're doing might be a bit mundane, rather than the relative excitement of BlackOps.

"Ironic" where have I heard that before? You don't work in the BBC complaints department do you James?

Can you stop bringing up this odd metaphor of the used car salesman? It's not relevant to this discussion.

Sorry I'm just being ironic. I thought that was OK with you.

OK this thread has truly bored me now. i mean there's not much else to say is there?

cdd wrote:OK this thread has truly bored me now. i mean there's not much else to say is there?

That is the most sensible thing you've said so far.

Its been real folks. Thanks again.

Well I think a point has been proven - thankfully ours and the answer to the thread title is clearly a resounding yes. Now any newcomers don't need to read the whole thread to find our reasoning!

I think it smacks of double standards when you consider that they didn't sack Jonathan Ross.

Ok. And apologies to everyone for the amount of time this is taking up on your forum but the rather dull story is this.
My ex boss.(Zavisa Bjelogrlic) printed up a number of laptop stickers for his product teams when he joined the BBC last spring. Occasionally BBC teams also get mugs done. One of my favourites was one called FM&Tea. You might also see some evidence of these on flickstreams etc (/programmes, /identity )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... ulik.shtml (He is real. See news of his appointment and job title in this press release).
He also printed some called "Black Ops". I found one on his desk one day and its been on my (BBC issued) laptop ever since. Obviously its a jokey reference to tech teams at the BBC doing "unrecognised" product development. Its not the name of a dept. There is no team at the BBC called this . Its just a sticker. A rather lame sticker.
Part of my job involves talking publicly to groups of people who have a tendency to take photos and share them online which is why there are a few pix like this out there.
I only found this forum last night when someone sent me a link saying there is a thread 70 strong talking about your sticker. Apologies again. This must be rather dull.
</embarrassed at fuss on your forum>

Hello Jem.

You needn't apologise for anything. This site is, after all, designed for discussion - and this topic has provided no shortage of that.

I'm pleased, too, that you felt able to join up and clarify this matter for the wider audience. I do appreciate your response may not be entirely satisfactory to some - but that's life.

Both you, and of course Mozo too, are welcome to continue contributing to this board. A broad range of opinions and views are always welcome; and myself and Isontine will endeavour to supervise and moderate fairly, where appropriate.

Now you see Jem, that's a PROPER explanation, thank you.

Just a shame it took so long and that a BBC employee felt that it wasn't appropriate to respond on a BBC messageboard about use of the BBC logo. Also a shame that when this 'rather dull' question could have been easily settled on the BBC boards you instead chose to just restrict my access to the board rather than do so. That's the only reason it ended up out here in cyber land and may by now have reached you through other channels as well.

But you've answered the question now. The sky hasn't fallen and we're not all grabbing riot shields and pitchforks (well apart from some of the people on this board who seem to have them by the front door anyway). Its a bit odd though that you feel the need to apologise for a thread that was discussing the issue. Seems like you regard open debate as a tiresome sideline rather than something to be given support. I suppose that would explain your comments in the Eduserv Symposium that its "your job to control social media". I'd say your attitude still betrays the disdain you have for this process. Its all so terribly tiresome for you to have to stoop down to our level to explain anything. Not a good approach for someone in your position is it? Maybe even a bit patronising, not just to me but to all the others that have taken the time to contribute to the discussion. I also seem to remember that on the POV board a few weeks ago you advocated the discussion of BBC topics elsewhere on the web. Well here we are.

If anyone deserves an apology Jem its the members of the 6MMB board who you have alternately ignored and goaded for the past several months. Perhaps you could start by taking me off pre-mod which as you know was done without any good reason and probably just to teach me a lesson for what you presumably see as my impertinence. Behaviour like that just gives us the impression that you’re arrogant and power drunk. You're probably not, but ignoring reasonable requests for discussion and then chucking the handcuffs on the people you don't like has a tendency to come across like that. Mind you, if that is your mindset I think you’ll find a few friends on this thread, so stick around!

While you’re here you might also like to note that I’ve come in for a fair bit of stick over the past few days, but I'm still breathing. You know the odd insult and jibe and a bit of bad language hasn't caused me any loss of sleep. Maybe something for you to consider when your moderators are applying such a wide interpretation of your 'house rules'.

Anyway my thanks again to Gavin for providing the space for this to be brought out into the open and also for the invitation to stay. I may well lurk around and contribute to some other threads if I think I can add anything worthwhile.

And to those of you that are still carping on the sidelines … yeah, whatever.