Bit Of Fry And Laurie Wiped?

[Geoff Sear]

Gary said:

That last comment was almost funny.Hasnt convinced me you dont love the sound of your own voice though.

I can't see what your problem is with what Louis said. Anyway, the only mention of wipings does seem to be in the Wikipedia entry, and the first series has been shown recently as Mr. Barfe said...his point about digital conversion and possible junkings of the original tapes is a good one, as it would make some sense of these "wiped" rumours.

[Gary]

geoff said:

Gary said:

That last comment was almost funny.Hasnt convinced me you dont love the sound of your own voice though.

I can't see what your problem is with what Louis said. Anyway, the only mention of wipings does seem to be in the Wikipedia entry, and the first series has been shown recently as Mr. Barfe said...his point about digital conversion and possible junkings of the original tapes is a good one, as it would make some sense of these "wiped" rumours.

My problem was his calling the question of something being wiped as cobblers.Andrew had already answered the question in a to the point way without having to run down other peoples views.Louis's posting added nothing to what Andrew had already said apart from calling someone elses view cobblers.My view is that its not unreasonable at all to wonder if any series has been junked given the BBC track record.Fry and Laurie is probably a safe series but you cant wonder at people being concerned can you?Thats my rant over anyway.

[lfbarfe]

Gary said:

geoff said:

My problem was his calling the question of something being wiped as cobblers.

Well, that shows that you've missed the point by a mile. There's nothing wrong with questioning whether something exists. I do it all the time. However, there's also nothing wrong with calling that bit of the Wikipedia entry cobblers because the evidence even to an outsider like me points to the fact that the series exists. The entry implied that the DVD would be made from any old source, possibly off-air VHS. Questioning something's archive status is valid, scaremongering less so.

Andrew had already answered the question in a to the point way without having to run down other peoples views.

Sent him your wants list yet? "I love you, Andrew, and by the way, can you get me every surviving Epilogue, all of Triangle, Mainly for Men and the bit where Delboy falls through the bar?". I wasn't running down people's views. I was calling a cobblers statement cobblers, because it was.

Louis's posting added nothing to what Andrew had already said apart from calling someone elses view cobblers.

On the contrary. As I've said repeatedly, but you seem unable to take in, I added a fairly reasonable conjecture as to how the 'wiped' rumour started. The original tapes may well have been bulk-erased but only after archival D3 or DigiBeta dubs were made. In this way, you could say that a great many things involved in the BBC's archive transfer project were wiped or junked, just because the Corporation didn't keep the original media.

My view is that its not unreasonable at all to wonder if any series has been junked given the BBC track record.

My view is that is not unreasonable to assume that a series still exists when it has just been repeated on Paramount and is about to come out on DVD. Isn't it better to keep your powder dry for when you really need to get annoyed about a real, genuine loss?

[lfbarfe]

Thank you, Geoff. Someone who can read.

[Clive Shaw]

I think it is unlikely that any major recorded series made since the mid-80's has been wiped, especially something as repeatable as 'A Bit of Fry and Laurie' and if it had then you can almost bet that someone somewhere will have a decent copy of it.

I would guess that alot of the original 2" or 1" tapes have been dumped after the conversion to D3. There's a good thread over at the Mausoleum Club which highlights problems with PAL decoding when programmes were transferred to D3 and the original Quads not available. Many of the original tapes might not be playable now in any case.

[Gary]

lfbarfe said:

Gary said:

There's nothing wrong with questioning whether something exists. I do it all the time.

Better not start questioning whether you exist then.On second thoughts tho.

[lfbarfe]

Gary said:

Better not start questioning whether you exist then.On second thoughts tho.

Is that the best you can manage? Gawd. This from someone who was giving me a comedy masterclass earlier ("that was almost funny", etc.). This also from someone who signs in as a 'guest' with one of the most commonly used male forenames of the 1960s and 1970s. You could be anyone, whereas there are several around here who can vouch for my existence. As for you, the word 'troll' springs to mind.

[Rob Moss]

Gary said:

lfbarfe said:

Gary said:

There's nothing wrong with questioning whether something exists. I do it all the time.

Better not start questioning whether you exist then.On second thoughts tho.

Oh Louis exists. Ask Ian Beaumont.

[Gary]

lfbarfe said:

Gary said:

Better not start questioning whether you exist then.On second thoughts tho.

Is that the best you can manage? Gawd. This from someone who was giving me a comedy masterclass earlier ("that was almost funny", etc.). This also from someone who signs in as a 'guest' with one of the most commonly used male forenames of the 1960s and 1970s. You could be anyone, whereas there are several around here who can vouch for my existence. As for you, the word 'troll' springs to mind.

Maybe signing in by my common name is because it actually is my name?If Barfe is your surname you have my sympathy.

[lfbarfe]

Gary said:

Maybe signing in by my common name is because it actually is my name?

Did I say it wasn't? However, there are so many people called Gary that you could be anyone. There's a Gary C on here as well. Are you him or someone else?

If Barfe is your surname you have my sympathy.

I notice that you choose to leave yours off, so I assume it's worse than mine. I'm guessing that it's Glitter.

[John Powell]

Now now children, let's play nice

[Gary]

Well, the bad man is being beastly.The name is Holden by the way.Its easier to just leave a first name.In the past there werent many people posting called Gary.To have a distinct name doesnt really make life easier tho as John Stewart Miller found out when all and sundry decided to post by the same name.

[lfbarfe]

Gary said:

Well, the bad man is being beastly.

Glad to see you admit it.

The name is Holden by the way.Its easier to just leave a first name.In the past there werent many people posting called Gary.

I am the real Rod Hull...

To have a distinct name doesnt really make life easier tho as John Stewart Miller found out when all and sundry decided to post by the same name.

Create an account and log in using it. Then anyone who signs in using your name as a guest can be readily identified as an impostor. Job done.

[Kev]

Who is this Adam Lee bloke?