ABC Archives may have missing episodes

[Lance M]

Yes, that may be true. But I doubt that the ABC will fund such a venture given the overall size and scale of the type of search that you are suggesting. Maybe someday when they have more funds, then such a venture could but mostlikely will not happen. Maybe a search of the labels on the cans, bou just think of how long that would take to actively take the film fromthe archives, put it in a film projector by a skilled technician or archivist then move along to the next one. That would literally take years to accomplish, and financially would not be worth the cost, even if an episode did crop up. I wish it was not so, time to think of new plausable places that episodes might exist.

Thanks,Lance.

[Douglas]

Guest-Stephen said:

The Above is a typical example of big headed know all hi up fans with connections to the Beeb jumping in like a bull in a China shop. The whole point of this thread is stressing the point that some of the ABC archive is un checked, anything could be in there! No doubt Daminen and Steve Roberts have good hard evidence to state that there is no Doctor Who in the part of the ABC that is checked, there is the remotest possibility that an odd episode may be lurking at the back of the archive somewhere. So by saying, their are no missing episodes in the ABC ,they have checked, is INCORRECT. They HAVE not searched the whole archive. When they have then you can state what you have stated above, Richard.

This is getting silly now.

Might I offer an analogy?

There is the remotest possibility that Lord Lucan is living in my garden shed but as I've searched my garden shed, the police have searched my garden shed, respected experts have searched my garden shed and Lady Lucan and her dog have searched my garden shed and yet no-one has found him, we can safely assume that - for all useful discussion - Lord Lucan is not in my garden shed.

Similarly, as numerous, well qualified people have searched the ABC archives and found nothing, we can safely assume - for all useful intents and purposes - that the ABC archives do not contain any missing episodes.

To claim otherwise is ridiculous, pointless and merely serves needlessly to take up space on this forum and waste other people's time. Equally, coming down to the level of splitting semantic hairs (e.g. there may possibly maybe be some small corners of the ABC archive unchecked, therefore it is not possible to say authoratively that there are no missing episodes there) is generally accepted to be the point at which the 'splitter' has lost the argument.

And please - please - run your posts through a grammar and spell checker.

Oh, and no, Steven - I've never met Richard Bignall and wouldn't know him from Adam were I to pass him in the street. I simply despair at the manner in which you conduct yourself on this forum.

D

[Stephen Neve]

Guest-Douglas said:

This is getting silly now.

Might I offer an analogy?

There is the remotest possibility that Lord Lucan is living in my garden shed but as I've searched my garden shed, the police have searched my garden shed, respected experts have searched my garden shed and Lady Lucan and her dog have searched my garden shed and yet no-one has found him, we can safely assume that - for all useful discussion - Lord Lucan is not in my garden shed.

Similarly, as numerous, well qualified people have searched the ABC archives and found nothing, we can safely assume - for all useful intents and purposes - that the ABC archives do not contain any missing episodes.

To claim otherwise is ridiculous, pointless and merely serves needlessly to take up space on this forum and waste other people's time. Equally, coming down to the level of splitting semantic hairs (e.g. there may possibly maybe be some small corners of the ABC archive unchecked, therefore it is not possible to say authoratively that there are no missing episodes there) is generally accepted to be the point at which the 'splitter' has lost the argument.

And please - please - run your posts through a grammar and spell checker.

Oh, and no, Steven - I've never met Richard Bignall and wouldn't know him from Adam were I to pass him in the street. I simply despair at the manner in which you conduct yourself on this forum.

D

And your manner ain't much to be desired either. Don't know who you are Douglas, but you seem more interested in having a dig at me than being concerned at the contents of this thread, looks like you just want to put fuel into the fire. If you have been reading this thread carefully, you will discover that not all the ABC Archive has been searched, that is the whole point, while the part thas has been searched does not contain any missing who. If the whole Archive has not been searched, how do you know there is nothing else in their douglas. Some people seem to miss this fact.

[Douglas]

Guest-Stephen said:

And your manner ain't much to be desired either. Don't know who you are Douglas, but you seem more interested in having a dig at me than being concerned at the contents of this thread, looks like you just want to put fuel into the fire. If you have been reading this thread carefully, you will discover that not all the ABC Archive has been searched, that is the whole point, while the part thas has been searched does not contain any missing who. If the whole Archive has not been searched, how do you know there is nothing else in their douglas. Some people seem to miss this fact.

I think you're missing the point Steven. My point - and those of others more knowledgable than I on this forum - is that the likelihood of ABC having any Who - regardless of which specific cupboards have been opened or not at the archive building - is vanishingly small. As a result, this thread serves no purpose whatsoever.

I may indeed give the impression of getting a dig at you, but that is simply because no-one seems able to get it into your head that the majority of your posts are - and I apologise for the lack of courtesy in advance - stupid to the point of imbecility. You combine a breath-taking arrogance with an overwhelming lack of understanding of your chosen topic, and then compound matters by attempting to slap down those who genuinely do know what they are talking about. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

When you add in your frankly ludicrous self-imposed title of Episode Hunter, which you seem to think is actually a job (a job in which, I might add, you seem to have achieved precisely nothing), you appear to be going out of your way to single-handedly make these fora almost worthless.

Which would be a shame.

Now, you can take the preceeding as a wholly unjustified personal attack on yourself if you wish, but it might be more useful if you read through this entire thread, noting the reasonable nature of many of the replies to your increasingly shrill and incoherent posts, then took a step back and reconsidered both the content and tone of your online contribution, and why people can get a little annoyed with you.


D

[Stephen Neve]

Guest-Douglas said:

I think you're missing the point Steven. My point - and those of others more knowledgable than I on this forum - is that the likelihood of ABC having any Who - regardless of which specific cupboards have been opened or not at the archive building - is vanishingly small. As a result, this thread serves no purpose whatsoever.

I may indeed give the impression of getting a dig at you, but that is simply because no-one seems able to get it into your head that the majority of your posts are - and I apologise for the lack of courtesy in advance - stupid to the point of imbecility. You combine a breath-taking arrogance with an overwhelming lack of understanding of your chosen topic, and then compound matters by attempting to slap down those who genuinely do know what they are talking about. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

When you add in your frankly ludicrous self-imposed title of Episode Hunter, which you seem to think is actually a job (a job in which, I might add, you seem to have achieved precisely nothing), you appear to be going out of your way to single-handedly make these fora almost worthless.

Which would be a shame.

Now, you can take the preceeding as a wholly unjustified personal attack on yourself if you wish, but it might be more useful if you read through this entire thread, noting the reasonable nature of many of the replies to your increasingly shrill and incoherent posts, then took a step back and reconsidered both the content and tone of your online contribution, and why people can get a little annoyed with you.


D

I repeat again Duncan, that the whole point of this thread is the fact the not all the ABC has been checked. So its highly unlikely there may be more who, but there maybe. The thread is here for decent disscusion on this possibility. I just have to wonder why someone like yourself is on this thread if you think it is "pointless". Just looking to stir up trouble is the likely reason. If you don't like my Tone then Bog off to another Forum. And where on this thread have I "SLAPPED down" those who know what they are talking about, apart from a reply to Richard Molesworths post, where I was a bit over the top, where I was trying to get the point of stating on this thread that their is no more who in the ABC, was pointless and incorrect when the whole of the ABC archive has not been fully checked. Whats wrong with using the word "episode hunter", what title would you suggest then Douglas. "Doctor Who finder", Episode Finder or how about a flash PC title, Doctor Who missing episodic huntsmen and Finder, what a mouthful. I get the impression that your one of those that belives their are no more out there!. Fair Enough!. Unlike you Douglas, their are people who are giving up their Spare time to try and track down lost episodes, something which you are not prepared to do obviously.

[Shane Anderson]

I believe I read on OG that ABC was in the process of transferring their holdings to digital media. If that's the case, and if an odd episode is lost somewhere in a dark corner, then that's probably the only chance of it being unearthed since so much searching has gone on and nothing else has turned up. Patience is the only recourse here.

[Douglas]

Guest-Stephen said:

I repeat again Duncan, that the whole point of this thread is the fact the not all the ABC has been checked. So its highly unlikely there may be more who, but there maybe. The thread is here for decent disscusion on this possibility. I just have to wonder why someone like yourself is on this thread if you think it is "pointless". Just looking to stir up trouble is the likely reason. If you don't like my Tone then Bog off to another Forum. And where on this thread have I "SLAPPED down" those who know what they are talking about, apart from a reply to Richard Molesworths post, where I was a bit over the top, where I was trying to get the point of stating on this thread that their is no more who in the ABC, was pointless and incorrect when the whole of the ABC archive has not been fully checked. Whats wrong with using the word "episode hunter", what title would you suggest then Douglas. "Doctor Who finder", Episode Finder or how about a flash PC title, Doctor Who missing episodic huntsmen and Finder, what a mouthful. I get the impression that your one of those that belives their are no more out there!. Fair Enough!. Unlike you Douglas, their are people who are giving up their Spare time to try and track down lost episodes, something which you are not prepared to do obviously.

I give up , I really do. Clearly you have problems with basic English...there is no point of any value to this thread and I'm hard pushed to see anything of any value in anything you've posted on these fora.

But I would be interested to hear what you have actually achieved in your, ahem, 'job'? Beyond your claim to have discvered Bernie Kent (and funnily enough I remember reading that particulary long thread on here and on the beerdrinkers site and I don't remember you actually doing anything to track down Mr Kent, your claims to the contrary). You seem to be avoiding the question when others have asked you.

Finally, the reason I'm trying to convince you is that it annoys me that the likes of you have caused several very knowledgable people to stop using this board because they were fed up with the imbecilic questions being asked.

D

[Douglas]

Guest-Shane said:

I believe I read on OG that ABC was in the process of transferring their holdings to digital media. If that's the case, and if an odd episode is lost somewhere in a dark corner, then that's probably the only chance of it being unearthed since so much searching has gone on and nothing else has turned up. Patience is the only recourse here.

Exactly. And there - in one paragraph - we have more sense than in Steven Neve's entire ouevre.

D

[Lance M]

In response to the previous postings here where it was rumored in a thread on OG that the ABC was in the process of transfering thier archives to digital recordings. So if they are indeed making the transfer , and the rumor that the ABC archives have not been fully searched is indeed true then sometime in the forseeable future a missing episode or two might be found. All we have to do is wait and see what happens.
KEEP YOUR FINGERS CROSSED!

Thanks,Lance.

[Mark Brown]

This party is over.

*Thread Locked*

play nicely next time.