It doesn't just *seem* to be.... it IS! If the ".uk" designation in the domain name wasn't enough indication for a "internet developer by profession", the site title of "The UK Campaign for Logo Free TV" should be a dead giveaway. Pop quiz: How much of this site does a dumbass have to browse through to detect a UK flavor?




Very good, bright boy! It DOESN'T. Duh. (please refer to "UK" designations above)



Huh?? "In in my humble opinion"?? Pick one: "in MHO" or "IMHO"




Hey... check out http://www.m-w.com




"little lone"???? Hey, dumbass... I think you mean "let alone". Did you even complete high school?
I'll bet most everyone you work with thinks you're a dumbass. They probably refer to you as that behind your back.

Billy Bob!!! Lighten the f**k up!!! What's your problem???

Should we point out that "Bob" is spelled with two 'B's, and not 3?

a "internet developer by profession"???

Perhaps you meant AN "inter....."?

Get a life! Relax! Get laid if that's your need!

Considering the "slime-pit of gratuitous, acrimonious squabbling" this thread has become, only one sound comes to mind: YA-Whooooooo-oooooh!


To which billybobb retorted:


billybobb, you're digging clear back to 06/08/02, which is grasping at straws; a determined, but desperate effort to frame jolmstd as, a dimwit.

(Uh! Oh! A grammatical "fox-paws" on my part! I constructed a run-on sentence.)

billybob: It appears to me that jolmstd has "got his mind right" - Cool Hand Luke
If you walked up to Stephen Hawking's wheelchair and he had none of his appliances at his fingertips you'd think he was barely in there.

Regardless of whether his methodology is Einsteinian in nature or mimics the hillbilly stylings of Jethro Bodine, jolmstd's heart is in the right place.

He possessed enough intelligence to earn the necessary wages. He made an elective decision on a major electronic purchase. He had enough perceptive power to realize he had a permanent "ghost" imprinted on his screen, and used deductive reasoning (or research abilities) to find out how this calamity might have occurred.

He was/is open to suggestions on the best way to pursue the responsible (irresponsible) culprits, and has (purportedly) embarked on the path to that end. (Film @ 11:00, watch this space.)


Peruse a whole list of luminaries who did not complete their formal education. Oh! That I could be so dumb, and live in equivalent squalor!


It would do no harm if your signal provider were to put a permanent "Dumb Ass" logo in the middle of YOUR screen, no matter what you were watching. Since that term is such a staple of your daily verbiage you probably wouldn't even notice.

I use "Dumbass" all the time, I'd be happy to consider it a staple of my vocabulary. It's not my fault there's so many "Dumbasses" out there. They're the reason I use it, if it weren't for them, I'd never say it!!!

Just thought I'd chip in my cent and a half!!

Why is there such a movement against television stations putting tags on their own broadcasts. It's just like a company putting it's letterhead on their stationary.

I'd really like to know what these stations did wrong. PLEASE....somebody tell me.

Because, Its Cold, stationary logos tend to "burn in", or form permanent images, on CRT-based displays. To see an extreme case, next time you're at the ATM machine, notice that the main welcome display, the one that's onscreen when nobody is using the machine, is still visible when other screens pop up.

We don't mind stations promoting themselves (okay, we do, but that's not the point), we just mind having them do it in such a way that it causes remnants of said promotions to become a permanent part of our property.

Larry
www.fineelectricco.com

Finally, a champion for "Dumbass". "Dumb Ass" actually has biblical mention, so don't think you're a charter member, or that some of the rest of us don't find the proper occasion to use it as well.
Hardly a surgical term; does billybobb have any poignant input on the topic of the thread? Inquiring minds (at this point) DON'T want to know.

Why pick on the guy's spelling or grammar? If it weren't for his incessant browbeating we'd be more interested in billybobb's view. He only seems interested in continuing his slanderous jabs at jolmstd's level of education.

The continuing point here is that there is no constructive point to addressing jolmstd in that manner. He got on this site, cried tiny tears, saw that no one was throwing him any cry-towels, and got off his duff.(We hope.) Much like a kid who falls in the mud, crys for someone to take his hand and pull him out, only to realize nobody's around: He has to get up and do it for himself.

"If you want something done right, do it yourself."
Well, not always, but in this case it rings true. J's got the fever more than any poster in this thread, so he's the logical choice. Why then does it make sense to discourage/disparage him? Personally I ENCOURAGE him.


Why did the Cholo tag the brick wall? Because it was there! Why should I live with artifacts of network logos, especially after enduring all the repetitious commercials? It's video-vandalism! Put it on the front of the news desk, or behind the broadcaster. Don't put it in the middle of my documentary, movie, concert, blah, blah, blah.


Stationary I can file or shred. When my CRT or rear proj. screen is shredded, I'm out serious $$$$.


Feast on this:


If YOU knew it, I KNOW your employers HAD to know it. This means it's been KNOWN for years. You gotta know they anticipated complaints, and much like Ford with the Pinto they said: "Screw the Public, we're slapping logos!" Very nice people! Can you say "premeditated"? Now that the genie's out of the bottle it's going to be hard to put it back in. If jolmstd moves towards that end, I'm behind him, pushing him into the fire.(Burn, screen BURN! BooAhhaahahahaha! <-- a broadcaster..)

Sheik, you're hard to mess with....but what organization did you work for that deliberately sat down and thought, "Hmmm, if we make our logo, stationary, it'll burn into people's projection screen TV's and they'll be forced to look at it all the time"?

As much as I could believe that, with all the BS that goes on, it just doesn't seem very real to me. I HAVE seen several CRT's get burnt. But the ones I've seen have been production monitors that display CG images or OSD's for too long (Days) and get burnt in. It happens a lot less today with the newer monitors than it did, even 10 years ago. But CRT burn-in for rear projection TV's has been around since Joe Schmoe hooked his Atari up to his parents's primative big screen, left it on pause, came back and said "Uh-oh." This is why it says in the manual to avoid that kind of thing. I personally think broadcasters SHOULD use translucent bugs, just for the fact that "I" think opaque ones look tacky. But if you do something that the manual says not to, then aren't you at fault, if the broadcasters did nothing that was against the law. The many, many laws that they have to follow regarding their signal. Shouldn't the technology progress to the point at which your big screen can handle every type of possible signal that it will be receiving for a little longer than a newscast? Yes, even a stationary 100-120 IRE Bug'd picture. If you hooked up a waveform to your incoming signal I bet you'd find it to be totally legal. If you choose to ignore the manual's warnings, well, then that's a choice you make. If they won't change their bug for you, then don't watch them. You do have THAT power. Why do some people just think every stupid thing they do is someone else's fault? Read your manual!!! Okay, okay, I give up on this thread, Sheik, you're just too hard to win against. I just thought it was really funny that the guy wanted compensation from the station.

isn't that the purpose of the logo in the corner, for you to "Identify" the station and think "xyz has good shows" so they get a bonus and you think some other shows/movies are brought to you by them.

Also, even if it is unintentional, the problem is well known, so if they wanted, they could remove them, move them corners, make them transparent again.... obviously they are happy with the result.

Directly from my Mitsubishi manual, "Don't leave stationary images on-screen for more than 10 minutes".

From my very first post to this thread:


Yeah, I know I am quoting myself, try to over look it..

From this outline of what occurs during a typical news broadcast (for this channel), it should be clear that I did not view a stationary image on screen for more than 10 minutes. I am not aware of a single local news broadcaster that gives you uninterrupted news for a ten minutes. It is would be closer to 3 minutes of news, followed by a 1+ minute commercial, followed by you get the idea...


Could not agree with you more but I fail to see how I violated my manuals warning.


While I do not necessarily believe a station would use a logo with the intent to damage my TV, I do believe they either knew or should have known, of the potential danger the logo presented. Based on this, yes I do believe compensation for their error in judgment is warranted.

Finally a special thanks goes out to BillyBoob. If it were not for his fixation on detail, this posting would never have broken the 50 reply barrier....

-jo

This message was edited by jrolmstd on 06/25/02 20:33.17.

Sounds a lot like the cigarette compensations that tobacco companies are being made to pay. They knew that harm is done when using their product as intended, to wit:

Insert filter end in mouth, hold flame to other end, inhale smoke, exhale smoke, repeat.

Think tobacco companies want people to stop using their products any more than offending TV stations want their viewers to tune to other stations?

Larry
www.fineelectricco.com

Alright JR, I'm not familiar with your station, so I can't say they left it up there for more than 10 mins...my fav. station in MN, KARE did 10 straight mins tonight before the first commercial. I was amazed too. But if you're saying that the station doesn't leave it up there for more than 3 mins. How'd it get burnt in?

Larry, that tobacco company subject is touchy. People that knew cigarettes were harmful and still chose to smoke them, are getting money for it, and it just seems like BS to me. TV stations don't use a lot of big screen TV's and I can assure you, don't look for ways to intentionally damage a viewer's TV. In fact they try to avoid it. That's why they own lots of expensive pieces of equipment that are meant to protect the viewer and keep them within the legal operating limits of their signal. Pieces of equipment which do nothing more than make sure the picture's luminance is absolutely no brighter than a set IRE, well within the legal limit. It's just like if you paused your nintendo and came back 10 minutes later to find that mario is burned in on your screen, would you call up Nintendo and want them to fix it? I'd be bitching at Mitsubishi for making a set that can't handle a stationary image for more than 10 mins. Isn't there any kind of EIA, NTSC, or SMPTE standard for this kind of thing? Sucks that your nice HDTV is ruined, and I feel sorry for you, I'd be pissed too, but I don't think you'd have much LEGAL ground for a case against the broadcaster if they did nothing wrong. Sorry to sound like the broadcaster's advocate here, I just think the whole compensation thing is taking it a bit too far. I'd consider buying a new one, then returning your old one in it's place claiming dissatisfaction. And hope you never get caught.

To me there's a difference: You're supposed to (be able to) watch a show in its entirety. Leavingg the Nintendo on pause is improper use. Is watching the news the same thing??

(I personally haven't had a burn-in problem, I just like doing this.)

Nobody that I know thinks it is, or should be, illegal to keep a logo on, and I agree that, as with any attempt to censor, let the TV watcher just switch channels. Anyone who is aware now has no excuse.

Nobody wants punative damages, just restitution. There's a difference, y'know. We just want to find a way to let the TV stations know that we are changing channels, and why.

Larry
www.fineelectricco.com

They know it's happening and choose to say "So what", just because the other guy isn't taking his logo down, and they think they'd miss out on some benefit if they took theirs down first. It's malicious.


I wuz, uuuh... watchin' TV, on my uuuh... TV, Yup! - Misquoting the tortoise from 'The Tortoise and the Hare' (Bugs Bunny)


That truly is funny, and it's NEVER going to happen.

Who cares who you go after, AFTER you've already got screen burn? Or whether or not someone other than yourself (OR yourself) should be blamed.

My stance is that there HAS to be a technology by which the stations could at least ease the symptoms so that it would take some pretty hardcore viewing to get burn-in.

What if the solid logos faded to translucent, and then to nothing FAIRLY QUICKLY, and then faded back in somewhere else on the screen after a few moments (of ABSENCE).

No, that's no good; logos stink, period. Leave my movies, documentaries, and sheduled events free of logos. If I'm watching reruns of Seinfeld doesn't that show that I KNEW which station to find it on WITHOUT having a logo as my "pathfinder"?

They're TRYING to burn THEIR logo into "Ma & Pa Kettle's" mind so that the robotic, domesticated, television moonies will FREAK if they're not on their favorite station. In the process they (the broadcasters) KNOW that damage is occurring.

Use hard logos on the sets of talk shows, game shows, and newscasts. I could even imagine that in the past if you stayed tuned to a newscast on a regular basis you might have THE NEWS DESK imprinted where it splits the screen horizontally, but now the angles are always changing.


Well, young feller, was a time that cigarettes were promoted by popular athletes as being healthful and invigorating. (Yum Yum!)

All the people who deserved any money as a result of being "fooled" into sucking down carcinogens are already dead, and so are the people who fooled 'em. I don't want to hear about their distraught offspring wanting recompense either. Nowadays anyone who goes after the tobacco companies IS full of BS. READ THE WARNING STUPID!

In the case of TV's, RTFM (Read The Freaking Manual) does not completely apply. You bought the device for WHAT?? To WATCH IT!! Now the very medium which carries the mind-numbing experience to you is also ruining your device.

I do say "Let the viewer beware", but in the same breath I say "Ditch the logo, and if I cotton to your content, I'll become loyal viewer."

jolmstd: We'll be EXPECTING a single purpose "no logo" forum on the anti-logo site, and EXPECTING to see the site up SOON.

The URL has been an acquired, base pages developed. Currently waiting for the migration to occur with more testing scheduled prior to the general release of the URL.

Please understand this is a work in progress. It will not be all glitz and dazzle right out of the blocks. Initially it will focus on drawing attention to the problem and supplying supporting links to the networks and their contact pages. Long-term plans are more ambitious and include a forum...

-jo

All this rehashing the same thing is messing with my mind . I say someone that has or has had this problem should start a class
action lawsuit against the station (s) that have caused this problem (guess there might be hundreds that have noticed they have
burn in)
Or try an old fashioned pot smoking grass root 60's assault on the offending stations.

Or you could just put your crt or plasma on every station there is on your particular system and let them all burn in to a
mishmash design and tell your friends its a feature.



Hey how about this ? The networks could float it from corner to corner and keep it rotating so as not to create burn in .

Or they could make it into a Where's Logo (waldo) Game of it.

OR make it more transparent so that I CAN read the side notes on cnn. Or the score during a game or fight.

Ok my top ramen is done and so am I.