What the h*ll is going on with Bit-Tech???

Why can Simon not be trusted? He's been very honest and kept us in the loop. The fact that some ad formats have returned has nothing to do with him, he wasn't consulted first (I gather from his posts) so saying he's untrustworthy is somewhat a personal attack. He can only tell us what he's been told. If Dennis decide we're having x format ads, then that's what we'll get. As much as Simon is trying to sway marketing decisions, the team that do the ads don't actually have to listen.

 

Why did you feel our comments were directed specifically at you? Guilty conscience?

I think pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread (including Simon) has issues with the Dennis advertising team to varying degrees, so we're all on your side. But re-read Simon's posts, at no point has he been dishonest to be fair to him, so he can very much still have my trust unless he himself does something to cause me to question it.

Also, I'm very comfortable sitting on top of my box shooting the breeze for the time being. I'll get back in if it turns chilly

EDIT: ninja'd by Noiz by 6 minutes, damn phone

 

^Did you know that people with guilty consciouses are more easily startled by loud noises?

 

Firstly, I've got thick skin: if you trust me or not, entirely up to you. I would say, though, that in your original post, you also called either me, or people who I work with, "losers" and "B*STARDS".

You didn't launch a vile, personal attack, I agree. Still, the ad department, whether you like them or not, is made up of human beings too. Criticise all you like, I've got no problem with that. I could happily live without the name-calling, though. Just a personal thing that bugs me, I'm afraid.

S

 

I think that's fair comment. I passed on information earlier in the year that, thanks to a technical issue (as it turned out), turned out not to be true when I posted it. I thought it was, I passed it on, and I take the flack with no qualms when it turned out what I'd said was incorrect. That's entirely fair.

I'm a lot warier when passing information on, now, which is perhaps why I post about it just a little less, but I understand and appreciate the ill-feeling it causes when it feels like you're not getting the truth. For better or worse, I do try and deal with facts, and lessons were learned earlier in the year!

S

 

Simon,

I think that I am justified in disliking the forced approach of the advertising team who perhaps could be more proactive in trying to seek a consensus with the audience of the site, but I would like to think that I am big enough to see and apologise when I am in the wrong - I was definitely not directing 'losers' and 'b*stards' at you. This does not however justify those terms and what will have seemed an infantile way of complaining on the forum. I apologise both to you and the team involved (as well as any Forum-ites that thought I was meaning you, or were unhappy with the terms themselves) for those terms and I hope you'll allow me to put that down to a long working week. I shall keep it in check in future.

Thanks, Simon.

 

That's appreciated. As I said: if you see something you don't like, criticise all you like. That's exactly the way it should be. Hopefully, in the months to come, there will be a lot less to criticise, but let's see how we do!

S

 

Awesome, you did the right thing to clarify. My real point was that whilst Simon did pass on information that turned out to be incorrect, he was not setting out to deceive anyone, and was as taken aback as the rest of us when his information turned out to be false through no fault of his own.

Also, I don't seem to be getting the bottom banner ads today when I was swamped with them yesterday