Ian Levine thread

[Robbie Jackson]

If Mr. Levine reads this particular thread, he will probably throw his hands up in despair & wonder why on Earth he is bothering to ask for any help. On the one side, you've got Stephen Neve, whose inane rantings would piss off the most liberal of peaceniks, and on the other Richard Bignell,who could bore for England yet takes the bait and leaps in all pompous guns blazing whenever he sees Stephens name on the forums. The pair of you are as bad as each other and,as this thread is proving, as immature.

[John Stewart Miller]

richardbignell said:

Guest-John said:

Good old Richard B. puts the boot in again.

And where, pray, have I done that? Oh, look, I haven't...

The moment anyone has anything constructive, forward or positive to say that can move the archive status quo, we get these high falutin comments downgrading the points.

I think you obviously need to read what I wrote again.

1 - I hardly think Steven's sarcastic comments about "do gooder mods" on the RT Forum can be described as either positive or constructive. As neither he nor you have any idea *why* Ian's post might have been taken down, silly comments about the removal of it are hardly called for.

2 - I'm more than aware of Ian's valuable work in the recovery of missing episodes and indeed I have personally spoken to him about his contribution. Likewise, I am also aware that he can have a tendancy to overstate his case sometimes and as far as I understand it, the recovery of the four episodes from The Reign of Terror are a case in point as these were discovered in Cyprus by Paul Vanezis (his family comes from there). Indeed, the letter he received from the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation in October 1984 confirming their existence was published in the June 1985 edition of Celestial Toyroom and it predates any telexes sent out by the BBC by a clear two weeks.

So, having said all that, do please enlighten me as to exactly where I'm "putting the boot in"?

Richard

The tone seemed immediately dismissive of Ians important points about archive television.

I do appreciate that what you wrote may have read as not intended.

I do appreciate also that there may have been some sarcastic remarks in the posters correspondance which angered you.

I will read your post again, but to go through this; while retaining a willingness to apologise for my snap remarks (emotive retorts on an apparent put down of some good points - Ian Levines -); I recall a 'no, no because of X and X it can only be this way' on a previous thread we were on together (any episodes lost forever).

I found your technically informed comments on 'The Ice warriors' very interesting, but felt that on the former thread where ever I presented a reasonable argument, you seemed to cast a singular cut & dried conclusion ousting what I had to say.

I find this from a proffessional disappointing, particlarly with the restoration teams great efforts. But theres my point, if it appears a proffessional is being high and mighty and dismissive where a more proffesional attitude to the debate might be expected, and its all 'no, no' it is going to upset people.

I know now I'll probably get endless comments trying to blame me for being personalised and dumbing down what I have to say. however I've been doing this now for nearly thirty years and consider myself well versed and semi pro, but I don't see the point in appearing to put down others with my position.

So I will think about and re evaluate your e-mail but I ask you also to think about what I've said. At the end of the day the t.v. reps and the collectors / researchers are all in it for the ends of the love of the same art.

[Robbie Jackson]

What on Gods Earth are you rattling about John Stewart Miller? This site is getting full of pointless eccentrics who will try & analyse the contents of a dog turd.

You are turning this site into a laughing stock. www,crankscorner.com may be a name the mods may consider addopting.

[Stuart Douglas]

Robbie said:

What on God's Earth are you rattling about John Stewart Miller? This site is getting full of pointless eccentrics who will try & analyse the contents of a dog turd.

You are turning this site into a laughing stock. www.crankscorner.com may be a name the mods consider adopting.

Well I don't think I'd have gone quite that far, given that Mr Miller's post is at least polite, but I too have no idea at all what Mr Miller is talking about.

As that's the second long post lately which appears to be filled with typos, non sequiters and references to threads long since forgotten, perhaps this *is* a good time to close this thread down?

Stuart