Post by John Stewart Miller on Jun 26, 2005 22:51:07 GMT
Re:Re: Ian Levine thread
« Reply #92 on May 27, 2005, 2:42am » (quote 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.
There you are, what did I say – your last post draws the subject back to individuals and insults again, dumbing down and sidelining the more important issues.
I should add though, I probably have got a taste of my own medicine here, having delivered a hasty, heavy handed original posting.
On that count (as I say in my last posting) I did overlook Steve Neves initial insulting comments, which changes the perspective of Richard Bignells first replies.
However, I think Steve, like me, made an urgent reactionary and aggressive initial posting acting on behalf of issues raised in Ian Levines post we feel are important, progressive ideas on a subject we care about. Most people who post on these forums perceive old TV as an art form. Art is a subject people will get emotional and political about. It may be hard for some to understand, but then maybe those people should spend their time on forums about flower pressing or soccer?
I’ve used dense English in my last post, but if read again you’ll see it’s a reply to Richard Bignells quoted post. The two in context together might make more sense. If they don’t, read the thread from the beginning again. True, some may still not comprehend, but they’re likely to be trying to make me look ridiculous to shut me up again.
I wouldn’t say I’m particularly eccentric or pointless? The vast majority of my threads elsewhere have generated a lot of constructive and fascinating interchanges, and have been on reasonably intelligent subjects. Old TV is by its nature an eccentric pursuit, and if you consider that Einstein was eccentric, where would the world be now without them? Better to come on here and make some supportive comments on the subject at the risk of making a fool of yourself than sit on your butt in a lonely room doing nothing about it!
I think several of the initial correspondents on this thread made the mistake of being over aggressive and involved in personalised arguments. I would say there I respect and support Andrew Pixleys post on Richard, Andrew is well respected. I’m sure Richard ‘in real life’ might be a nice bloke who I’d buy a drink. But what I refer to is the ‘adopted arrogance’ referred to in previous posts on the part of certain heads of TV company departments, who must brief their reps on what to say.
All I say there is, it would have been a better policy for Richard to ignore, as Dick Fiddy (NFA) has at other times, personalised comments and give a factual answer. Chris Perry of Kaleidoscope has previously issued statements in a perfectly professional and tempered manner, stating where and why sensitive areas are better not discussed. It would make better P.R. because theres no leeway for ambiguity and misunderstanding with straightforward polite answers.
Otherwise it gives the impression of cliques and secret clubs within organisations that exclude others. Not very progressive or constructive.
« Reply #92 on May 27, 2005, 2:42am » (quote 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.
There you are, what did I say – your last post draws the subject back to individuals and insults again, dumbing down and sidelining the more important issues.
I should add though, I probably have got a taste of my own medicine here, having delivered a hasty, heavy handed original posting.
On that count (as I say in my last posting) I did overlook Steve Neves initial insulting comments, which changes the perspective of Richard Bignells first replies.
However, I think Steve, like me, made an urgent reactionary and aggressive initial posting acting on behalf of issues raised in Ian Levines post we feel are important, progressive ideas on a subject we care about. Most people who post on these forums perceive old TV as an art form. Art is a subject people will get emotional and political about. It may be hard for some to understand, but then maybe those people should spend their time on forums about flower pressing or soccer?
I’ve used dense English in my last post, but if read again you’ll see it’s a reply to Richard Bignells quoted post. The two in context together might make more sense. If they don’t, read the thread from the beginning again. True, some may still not comprehend, but they’re likely to be trying to make me look ridiculous to shut me up again.
I wouldn’t say I’m particularly eccentric or pointless? The vast majority of my threads elsewhere have generated a lot of constructive and fascinating interchanges, and have been on reasonably intelligent subjects. Old TV is by its nature an eccentric pursuit, and if you consider that Einstein was eccentric, where would the world be now without them? Better to come on here and make some supportive comments on the subject at the risk of making a fool of yourself than sit on your butt in a lonely room doing nothing about it!
I think several of the initial correspondents on this thread made the mistake of being over aggressive and involved in personalised arguments. I would say there I respect and support Andrew Pixleys post on Richard, Andrew is well respected. I’m sure Richard ‘in real life’ might be a nice bloke who I’d buy a drink. But what I refer to is the ‘adopted arrogance’ referred to in previous posts on the part of certain heads of TV company departments, who must brief their reps on what to say.
All I say there is, it would have been a better policy for Richard to ignore, as Dick Fiddy (NFA) has at other times, personalised comments and give a factual answer. Chris Perry of Kaleidoscope has previously issued statements in a perfectly professional and tempered manner, stating where and why sensitive areas are better not discussed. It would make better P.R. because theres no leeway for ambiguity and misunderstanding with straightforward polite answers.
Otherwise it gives the impression of cliques and secret clubs within organisations that exclude others. Not very progressive or constructive.
