|
|
Post by John Wall on Oct 5, 2023 11:19:33 GMT
The section entitled “Etymology”. That's what I'm looking at. It's talking about the original usage of "fanatic", but not giving any clear information about the derivation of "fan". Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary and other sources define "fan" as a shortened version of the word fanatic. Fanatic itself, introduced into English around 1550, means "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". When we use “fan” it’s a noun, so is “fanatic”. “Fancy” is a verb. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 5, 2023 11:51:42 GMT
That's what I'm looking at. It's talking about the original usage of "fanatic", but not giving any clear information about the derivation of "fan". Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary and other sources define "fan" as a shortened version of the word fanatic. Okay. The original usage of "fanatic" is really by-the-by as we all understand the meaning. Merriam-Webster is quite right to quote the 1885 citation, but makes no reference to the earlier sporting use of "fancy" to describe a follower, so it's not really a conclusive source - and for this, nothing is. As mentioned, it's this usage that some etymologists think may be the original derivation of the "fan" contraction. There are plenty of words that jump the hurdle from being verbs to nouns.  It may well be that "fanatic" is the original source word. It may be that it comes from "fancy". The point is, it's grammatically one of those words that you can't conclusive say has one source or another. I just thought it was interesting as lots of people make the same, and not unreasonable, assumption, but the reality may be shrouded in more mist than we may realise. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 5, 2023 11:53:37 GMT
Maybe things are a bit more complicated than we assume. And then some! Wise words, Tim. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Oct 5, 2023 12:36:33 GMT
The definition, above, of “fanatic” describes some people - no names, no packdrill - very well!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 13:16:26 GMT
Quickly back on to DW in one of my rare excursions to this section of the Forum. I'd heard a name banded about re missing DW, someone who was rumoured to have one, and a contact of mine actually asked me to break in and burgle his place!!!!! NO! FFS. Wait, what? Did you report that contact to the police? |
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Oct 5, 2023 15:38:16 GMT
I really think it would be helpful if we, as a fandom, stopped ascribing motives and shifted the language about collectors. Film collectors are heroes to anyone wanting to see missing TV. Tim, good for you for being a ‘glass half full’ type of guy! Sadly I’m not and for the simple reason/s that I am both an incorrigible cynic and a keen student of good ol’ human nature - the latter being very much responsible for the former. I’ve also interacted with a few churlish film collectors in my time too…  But what is the BFI’s policy regarding the procurement of film prints and remuneration? Did this collector bother to check? Was he given certain assurances by the institute that ultimately weren’t honoured? Judged solely from your description it sounds very much like said collector is childishly sulking simply because he was hoping to score some easy cash and didn’t! In such circumstances then it doesn’t sound like the BFI did much wrong tbh. Well considering that any legitimate bequeathment of missing ‘Who episodes would and could only be returned to the BBC it seems unlikely the latter would ever act in such an unscrupulous fashion. As I understand it, post copying, the Beeb happily returns all original film prints back to the owner if they so wish and I’ve never heard of the them reneging on that assurance… Undoubtedly but not so complicated that one should ever discount financial incentive as the predominant impediment from returning/sharing missing material - ironically your very own BFI anecdote above deftly affirms as much! Regardless, rampant speculation is an inevitable, untameable consequence of a hobby/interest perpetually shrouded in contested mystery and unsubstantiated rumour. That said, some certainly let their unbridled imaginations get the better of them at times offering up some truly absurd scenarios. My favourite is still the theory that your average aged film collector is reluctant to part with their treasure only because they’re sensitive, delicate and reclusive little sausages terminally shy of publicity! Aww! I mean it’s not as if anonymity couldn’t be guaranteed by the BBC if requested or anything… |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Burrows on Oct 5, 2023 17:02:36 GMT
I really think it would be helpful if we, as a fandom, stopped ascribing motives and shifted the language about collectors. Film collectors are heroes to anyone wanting to see missing TV. Tim, good for you for being a ‘glass half full’ type of guy! Sadly I’m not and for the simple reason/s that I am both an incorrigible cynic and a keen student of good ol’ human nature - the latter being very much responsible for the former. I’ve also interacted with a few churlish film collectors in my time too… But what is the BFI’s policy regarding the procurement of film prints and remuneration? Did this collector bother to check? Was he given certain assurances by the institute that ultimately weren’t honoured? Judged solely from your description it sounds very much like said collector is childishly sulking simply because he was hoping to score some easy cash and didn’t! In such circumstances then it doesn’t sound like the BFI did much wrong tbh. Well considering that any legitimate bequeathment of missing ‘Who episodes would and could only be returned to the BBC it seems unlikely the latter would ever act in such an unscrupulous fashion. As I understand it, post copying, the Beeb happily returns all original film prints back to the owner if they so wish and I’ve never heard of the them reneging on that assurance… Undoubtedly but not so complicated that one should ever discount financial incentive as the predominant impediment from returning/sharing missing material - ironically your very own BFI anecdote above deftly affirms as much! Regardless, rampant speculation is an inevitable, untameable consequence of a hobby/interest perpetually shrouded in contested mystery and unsubstantiated rumour. That said, some certainly let their unbridled imaginations get the better of them at times offering up some truly absurd scenarios. My favourite is still the theory that your average aged film collector is reluctant to part with their treasure only because they’re sensitive, delicate and reclusive little sausages terminally shy of publicity! Aww! I mean it’s not as if anonymity couldn’t be guaranteed by the BBC if requested or anything… Could the collector be bothered to check? There is no onus on collectors to do ANYTHING. No collectors: no missing TV or films. Thank goodness you're not trying to persuade anyone to hand anything over. Good grief. Talk about entitlement... |
|
Richard Develyn
Member
The Cloister Bell is ringing Bong! Bong! The Doctor needs to save us from Climate Change and WW3!
Posts: 588
|
Post by Richard Develyn on Oct 5, 2023 17:05:12 GMT
I would like to communicate to anyone out there holding on to stuff because they've had a bad experience with the BBC, BFI or whoever that the people who will most enjoy the return of missing material, fandom (however "fandom" might be defined :-)) and also thousands of people who will enjoy it without being out-and-out fans are not represented by the likes of the BBC, the BFI, etc. If we were, these institutions would fall over themselves with gratitude when you approached them.
On another thread, I mentioned Paul Vanezis, and he confirmed his willingness to act as a go-between. In my humble opinion, Paul represents the thousands of people who will delight in the return of this stuff. That's why he's here on this forum. Others who work in these organisations may well not, so please do not judge the attitude of fandom, etc., on the basis of their attitude.
I'd like to think that as time has passed, this sort of pissing-off of film collectors offering to give things back was a thing of the past. But just in case it isn't, please approach Paul V instead.
Richard
|
|
|
|
Post by andyparting on Oct 5, 2023 17:19:08 GMT
Quickly back on to DW in one of my rare excursions to this section of the Forum. I'd heard a name banded about re missing DW, someone who was rumoured to have one, and a contact of mine actually asked me to break in and burgle his place!!!!! NO! FFS. This was my concern about the fact that the information concerning collectors who have missing Who has gone widely online. |
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Oct 7, 2023 19:06:39 GMT
Quickly back on to DW in one of my rare excursions to this section of the Forum. I'd heard a name banded about re missing DW, someone who was rumoured to have one, and a contact of mine actually asked me to break in and burgle his place!!!!! NO! FFS. This was my concern about the fact that the information concerning collectors who have missing Who has gone widely online. Well, yes. I was not going to entertain this for one moment, because although I am incredibly keen to see as much missing material found as possible, I draw the line at wholesale criminality. |
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Oct 7, 2023 19:08:20 GMT
Quickly back on to DW in one of my rare excursions to this section of the Forum. I'd heard a name banded about re missing DW, someone who was rumoured to have one, and a contact of mine actually asked me to break in and burgle his place!!!!! NO! FFS. Wait, what? Did you report that contact to the police? No, because to me it was just some (expletive deleted) talking a load of old (expletive deleted). The police have enough on their overworked underpaid plates already. |
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Oct 7, 2023 20:42:15 GMT
Wait, what? Did you report that contact to the police? No, because to me it was just some (expletive deleted) talking a load of old (expletive deleted). The police have enough on their overworked underpaid plates already. You should consider reporting it anyway because if said person tries to get someone else to burgle the place, then there will be a record. |
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Oct 7, 2023 20:49:13 GMT
No, because to me it was just some (expletive deleted) talking a load of old (expletive deleted). The police have enough on their overworked underpaid plates already. You should consider reporting it anyway because if said person tries to get someone else to burgle the place, then there will be a record. Well, while I understand what you're saying here, the person with the rumoured DW is a contact of a friend of mine and I assure you they would be all over the internet screaming if it happened. In addition to this, the twannock in question who suggested burglary has certain mental issues that perhaps would sound like I'd be picking on him. Plus lastly, while he may have been being serious at the time, a conversation from some years ago would just be regarded as hearsay if no actual crime has taken place. So if I called Crimestoppers or 111 about a crime that actually hasnae taken place (and won't) I'd be the laughing stock, so.... no. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Oct 7, 2023 21:40:21 GMT
I suppose Dr Who fans feel entitled when prominent episode hunters go on social media and appear at events telling us that several episodes are in the hands of private collectors and that we should expect the number of missing Dr Who episodes are expected to go down soon!
By the way,the Richard Bignell/John Wall argument during this thread reminds me of that episode Time when Rik and Vyvyan are arguing that Rik was still a virgin whilst the rest of the episode is going on!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Oct 8, 2023 0:01:00 GMT
The Young Ones!
|
|
