Metropol

stu wrote:

Dr Lobster* wrote:http://www.tvforum.co.uk/tvhome/guess-s-youtube-39232/

i find the cwilliams thread a bit strange.

Some background, he speaks for himself in the lengthy comments part - http://www.transdiffusion.org/blog/2012 ... t_shocking

i did read a bit of that, but let's put it into perspective:

20,000 words written about a guy with mild learning disabilities who's main crime is.... re-voicing video clips somebody else grabbed off the tv without permission? have we all gone insane?

anybody with any semblance of intellect and interest in the subject at hand will easily be able to discern the mock clips made by people like williams from reality.

am i missing something fundamental to this?

No you're not, it's mental.

wells wrote:No you're not, it's mental.

Agreed. People are wasting far too much time fussing over a divvy.

Dr Lobster* wrote:anybody with any semblance of intellect and interest in the subject at hand will easily be able to discern the mock clips made by people like williams from reality.

am i missing something fundamental to this?

To people with enough of an interest in the subject to know the difference, it's merely annoying that you search for something genuine and find half of the results are his junk. Unfortunately the way he misrepresents his videos as being genuine historical recordings means that people who are not as well informed as TVF users are misled into thinking it's the real deal. Apparently (although I don't have a source for this) there was a close call involving a TV researcher looking for archive material.

Plus the attitude you get in reply if you suggest (in a perfectly civil way) that it would benefit everybody if he would just add the word mock or recreation to the titles of his videos does little to endear him.

Steve in Pudsey wrote:

Dr Lobster* wrote:anybody with any semblance of intellect and interest in the subject at hand will easily be able to discern the mock clips made by people like williams from reality.

am i missing something fundamental to this?

To people with enough of an interest in the subject to know the difference, it's merely annoying that you search for something genuine and find half of the results are his junk. Unfortunately the way he misrepresents his videos as being genuine historical recordings means that people who are not as well informed as TVF users are misled into thinking it's the real deal. Apparently (although I don't have a source for this) there was a close call involving a TV researcher looking for archive material.

Plus the attitude you get in reply if you suggest (in a perfectly civil way) that it would benefit everybody if he would just add the word mock or recreation to the titles of his videos does little to endear him.

Then that TV researcher must have been an idiot, it doesn't take a genius to work out it's so painfully inauthentic it hurts.

Naga Munchetty and her ergonomic mouse is taking a strange turn with talk of "how she takes care of her hands". Freaks.

Can I nominate this for post of the year (so far)?

Barney Boo wrote:

Worzel wrote:It does make me laugh on here how, if certain FM's disagree with another forum member you end up with obnoxious posts. Being civil and putting a reasoned reply doesn't cost anything.

How was I being obnoxious, I didn't even say anything about you being a pedantic deluded manchild?

What a strange chap... signs up seemingly just to badmouth Clive Holland.

http://neon.tvforum.co.uk/forums/post879684#post-879684

As if anyone's going to care on here.

http://neon.tvforum.co.uk/forums/post879876#post-879876

oh joy. the tedium of the difference between "logo" and "ident" shall no doubt last for a good 12 days

Pete wrote:http://neon.tvforum.co.uk/forums/post879876#post-879876

oh joy. the tedium of the difference between "logo" and "ident" shall no doubt last for a good 12 days

I'm not sure how you've managed to construe that post as forming some kind of argument. The difference is obvious.