OSG - Censorship & Regulatory Related Discussion

(03-10-2010 09:40 )bytor Wrote:  I think I have it sussed. The guy who presses the big button that places the OSG is in reality a spy working for a big secret organisation called 'The Other Channels'.
His mission:
1) to work behind enemy lines causing as much mayhem a possible.
2) to make the babestation channels look like they don't care.
3) to make the babestation production team look like rank amatuers

Hopefully now he has been rumbled steps will be taken to eliminate him and restore the army of girls to their rightful full screen glory!

Who can deny that your theory actually fits with the facts

The way that the viewers are being treated is a real travesty. But OFCOM have intimidated these people to such a degree (with their constant fines and threats) that some sympathy has to go out to the networks; in spite of the constant frustration and anger to viewers, brought on by being denied what we want to see on screen.

The entire network is now so fearful of these fines that they completely contradict what they are about: women revealing their charms for viewers; and not only having phone conversation…..The antics of the cameramen in finding ways to hide and move the camera away from anything below the waist (WHERE OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WANT TO SEE) tells its own story.

The policy of Babestation in regards to Dani Oneil, in particular, and the likes of Lynsey Dawn Mckenzie or any of the other girls who are known to OFCOM to have affiliation with the porn industry, is foolish in the extreme.

In any other industry, apart from the sex industry, such utter nonsense would not be tolerated: Because it amounts to nothing but contempt for the viewing public.

OFCOM has instilled such fear into these channels, that common sense has gone right out the window; and all that we are seeing now is SELF-PRESERVATION at the cost of viewing pleasure.

what kind of things do you think theyre doing deliberately and why?

does expecting you to text in then not forwading the text to the girl (while still charging you for the text) count as one of the things they do to sabotage?

(07-10-2010 09:44 )milschoolcadet Wrote:  what kind of things do you think theyre doing deliberately and why?

does expecting you to text in then not forwading the text to the girl (while still charging you for the text) count as one of the things they do to sabotage?

All that I am saying is that they are cowering from the tyranny of OFCOM to make certain that they receive no fines.

Unfortunately I am not really in a position to be able to shed any light on your question about the text messages. Perhaps some of the other members can assist you with this.

(30-10-2010 21:15 )viperxxx4 Wrote:  What I say may be seen as provocative, and this is about as much "disclaimer" as I can offer.

The way I see it, it's basic economics - If you are unhappy with a service, stop financing/buying it. As long as there exist die-hard fans out there who contribute vastly (financially) to the thriving of these companies, there is little need for them to take your "please remove the OSG" and other requests seriously. Unfortunately for the occasional viewer of these channels, die-hard fans remain resolute and almost defiant in the defense of this business, spending vast amounts on these girls to counter feelings of loneliness and who knows what else. This is very ironic given the fact that these very viewers have the least amount of influence on the business itself. A business by nature exists to extract the maximum amount of profit at the minimum required effort. "Customer satisfaction" follows in a distant second place - and nowhere is this truer than a business which charges obscene money in return for a wet dream.

So how do you influence the removal of OSG? The answer is simple, choke off demand and MAKE the business listen to you. Otherwise, the business can happily continue thriving at the ironic detriment of your viewing pleasure.. why wouldn't they?

Good day.

Everything you say here makes a lot of sense......But it lacks a certain depth considering the commodity in question happens to be sex.

If human beings were strong enough to resist sex, these channels would have been forced to defy the censors long ago, and give those who desire viewing pleasure, as opposed to the mere use of the imagination, satisfaction. It is only human frailty that enables them to persist, in spite of MUCH dissatisfaction.

I like your reply, thanks for that - but to be honest, I dont accept that this commodity you refer to is actually sex. The "sex" per se is free, just mute the TV, watch, and sit on your hands without reaching for the phone! "simplez!". But let's be absolutely clear here, what people are paying obscene money for is actually a conversation which, judging by the "mic left on" videos, I would be reluctant to pay a peanut for! This appeals directly to a "mummy-syndrome" deficiency which is unfortunately prevalent in many "modern men", and has very little to do with what you refer to as the "sex".

It might just be my personal taste, but the enjoyment of channels like this is just as good - if not better - gotten by watching a muted screen. I certainly prefer this than paying ridiculous money listening to some nervous old guy fumbling all about with a woman who can barely control her giggles.

I'm not advocating you or anyone else adopt my taste or point of view, but IF everyone here thought like me, demand for this "commodity" would be choked, giving you guys considerable power influencing the kinds of changes you'd like to see.

Worth a thought... no?

Your whole argument is overlooking one essential point: Men CRAVE to see the female form in ALL its glory!!

Censorship denies them this.....Whereas those who use the phones are content with the use of their imaginations. So, unlike you, most men cannot be content watching LAME images with the sound turned down.......And the phone callers, who are the bread and butter for these channels, have to make do with conjuring up their own images.

OK, it seems I may have hit a nerve here and so notwithstanding the risk of offending you (see my note about die-hard fans above), please let me make myself clear. There is no need to make this personal and I am much more interested in having intellectual discourse than examining exactly what material you need to get your rocks off.

You make a very good point (minus the BIG SHINY LETTERS). I'm not denying that calling the service adds an element to the enjoyment. I'm sure it contributes to a much fuller experience of the service. I also accept that human frailty is a big culprit (Daniel Kahnemann won the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics for observing this irrationality). All I am highlighting is the basic business mechanism by which this service can afford to continue with OSG's at the direct expense of your viewing pleasure - and this could not be simpler than the basic dynamics of supply and demand. It goes something like this: If you continue calling the service, do not expect to be able to influence it... and if you expect to be able to influence it, then do not call.

You speak of courage above to imply that this company has none. Let me turn that question around, if I may. Can you not see that it is your courage in the short term that forces this service to pay more attention to your wishes in the medium term? Let me ask you, my friend, with the deepest respect... is this courage present in you?

Please stop "overquoting" in your replies

(31-10-2010 13:16 )TheWatcher Wrote:  Please stop "overquoting" in your replies

Thanks for following the "discussion".

(31-10-2010 13:08 )viperxxx4 Wrote:  OK, it seems I may have hit a nerve here and so notwithstanding the risk of offending you (see my note about die-hard fans above), please let me make myself clear. There is no need to make this personal and I am much more interested in having intellectual discourse than examining exactly what material you need to get your rocks off.

You make a very good point (minus the BIG SHINY LETTERS). I'm not denying that calling the service adds an element to the enjoyment. I'm sure it contributes to a much fuller experience of the service. I also accept that human frailty is a big culprit (Daniel Kahnemann won the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics for observing this irrationality). All I am highlighting is the basic business mechanism by which this service can afford to continue with OSG's at the direct expense of your viewing pleasure - and this could not be simpler than the basic dynamics of supply and demand. It goes something like this: If you continue calling the service, do not expect to be able to influence it... and if you expect to be able to influence it, then do not call.

You speak of courage above to imply that this company has none. Let me turn that question around, if I may. Can you not see that it is your courage in the short term that forces this service to pay more attention to your wishes in the medium term? Let me ask you, my friend, with the deepest respect... is this courage present in you?

Before I begin, let me just say that I happen to be a man who is very passionate and emphatic in his mode of expression (hence the regular use of highlights.) This in no way implies hostility or personal grudge. It just happens to be my idiosyncrasy.

No one is denying that these channels can afford to continue with OSG’s at the expense of the viewing public as long as the demand is met. Obviously if the public keep calling the service then they have no reason to make any changes due to adverse criticisms. But your naïve suggestion that people should just watch and be satisfied with the volume turned down, instead of ringing the girls - which only sustains and maintains the status quo - instead of having any real power to influence change with the OSG,s and the like, lacks depth.

Desiring to see the female form in all its glory is HUMAN NATURE, not “wanting to get one’s rocks off”, but satisfying the composition and instinctive constitution of the human brain.

The fact that men simply do not have the strength required to resist the lame supply, because of their overwhelming desire to see more - which on rare occasions they do get to see - will not stop them from complaining about the pathetic censorship in place…..It is just that they do not have it in their constitution to be able to resist the power that is sex.

Asking me about my level of courage is pointless. For the simple reason that I have no way of being able to substantiate any claims that I may make.