Media Websites

Posh News - why?

(February 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
UB
Uncle Bruce
Quote:
At the request of the site owner, further discussion on this topic (not strictly for Media Websites!) should be stopped here.


Asa,

Why has this thread been closed?

If Mark Thompson rang you up and asked you to stop talking about News 24 or BBC1, would you make us all stop?

There was nothing illegal - and if the websites were supposed to be private, why were they not password protected?

It is clearly a media website, as much so as Neon Radio for one. You let that discussion run, why not this one?

There's no consistancy to this. Has this fellow just sent you a nasty e-mail or something?

I think we deserve a slight better explanation to this illogical closure.
NH
Nick Harvey Founding member
I must say that I found the part in brackets odd in the extreme.

It was a website containing television presentation, yet it was described as "not strictly for Media Websites".

How much closer to the core subject did it need to be?
UB
Uncle Bruce
Yep. With you there, Nick.

I can't see the point in this. You were asked to stop talking about something publically available on the internet? And you said yes?

We were not breaking any copyright laws
We were not doing anything illegal
The person involved joined in the discussion

Asa, what the hell were you thinking?
SE
Square Eyes Founding member
The Supreme Commander has obviously threatened a military strike on TV Forum.

We're all doooooomed.
UB
Uncle Bruce
Square Eyes posted:
The Supreme Commander has obviously threatened a military strike on TV Forum.

We're all doooooomed.


Haha .. quick everyone. Down to Der Bunker. Tin hats essential, tins of baked beans banned - it's an enclosed area.
IS
Isonstine Founding member
I think it was the threat of a TV Forum expose on William Hanson news that did it. Laughing
TV
tvmercia Founding member
very poor decision asa.
AS
Asa Admin
I was referring to the family website (which I know I should have made clearer) and the fact the thread was digressing into a personal attack by a couple of members on the site owner.

I did reply to William in a private PM, explaining that appropriate publicly available websites will be ripe for discussion.

I'll reopen the previous thread although please stick to discussion about the pres related site.

Asa
UB
Uncle Bruce
Thank you.

As I said in the thread, we were just having a bit of fun - admittedly at his expensise. If he was upset by this, perhaps he should have said so in the thread instead of joining in with it in the way he did.
LO
Londoner
Uncle Bruce posted:
As I said in the thread, we were just having a bit of fun - admittedly at his expensise. If he was upset by this, perhaps he should have said so in the thread instead of joining in with it in the way he did.

Can you honestly say that he would have got a sympathetic response if had he said so?
UB
Uncle Bruce
Londoner posted:
Uncle Bruce posted:
As I said in the thread, we were just having a bit of fun - admittedly at his expensise. If he was upset by this, perhaps he should have said so in the thread instead of joining in with it in the way he did.

Can you honestly say that he would have got a sympathetic response if had he said so?


Depends on my mood ... but if you will post links in your profile to these places, people will comment on them. I think he did say something - and I certainly toned it down after that. Of course, realistically, if one of the mods had said something we probably would have layed off - but instead they went for the radical instead of trying the diplomatic.

Newer posts