LL
I don't see why they have to put up a YouTube login when you can still watch their videos on your own account.
BA
The YouTube channel states "I love Anthony Davis and I hate L!VE TV. Except that sexy Jimmy Frinton." I think you need to continue your enquires, WillPS.
[removed] Mod edit: David, curb your cheap pot shots at other members
I was being serious:
http://bilky.info/bellringer/crawford.png
I've made some enquiries and it appears it was not the work of **.
I don't know if he is, but Jimmy Frinton is aware of the sale.
The YouTube channel states "I love Anthony Davis and I hate L!VE TV. Except that sexy Jimmy Frinton." I think you need to continue your enquires, WillPS.
[removed] Mod edit: David, curb your cheap pot shots at other members
I was being serious:
http://bilky.info/bellringer/crawford.png
DA
I don't think it's very fair that you remove my comment and replace it with your opinion. If a moderator is going to remove something from another users post, shouldn't it be kept completely objective with a simple [Comment removed] or similar? If that same mod wants to give an opinion, they could post it under their own name. Anyone reading this thread now, without seeing what I wrote may incorrectly assume that I posted something that was worse than other comments on TV Forum that haven't been removed or edited. Why is it ok to call another member 'a pedantic deluded manchild' but not ok for me to jokingly describe the same member as 'unpopular'?
You have also edited out the part of my post that points out that the member in question has their website linked to from the YouTube account of the person selling the L!ve TV archive. I thought that was interesting and it doesn't seem particularly contentious.
[removed]
Mod edit: David, curb your cheap pot shots at other members
I don't think it's very fair that you remove my comment and replace it with your opinion. If a moderator is going to remove something from another users post, shouldn't it be kept completely objective with a simple [Comment removed] or similar? If that same mod wants to give an opinion, they could post it under their own name. Anyone reading this thread now, without seeing what I wrote may incorrectly assume that I posted something that was worse than other comments on TV Forum that haven't been removed or edited. Why is it ok to call another member 'a pedantic deluded manchild' but not ok for me to jokingly describe the same member as 'unpopular'?
You have also edited out the part of my post that points out that the member in question has their website linked to from the YouTube account of the person selling the L!ve TV archive. I thought that was interesting and it doesn't seem particularly contentious.
WP
£14,100.00 was the winning bid. Potentially a bargain or a massive rip off.
It seems the [previous] owners sought to sell via more traditional avenues: https://docs.google.com/file/d/1W1WHf85HZIJWkO7l9ZuCk-p4ARlBZJhTKTOyzn5cdyPbpJqHxQHSSWs7HvZk/edit?usp=sharing
It seems the [previous] owners sought to sell via more traditional avenues: https://docs.google.com/file/d/1W1WHf85HZIJWkO7l9ZuCk-p4ARlBZJhTKTOyzn5cdyPbpJqHxQHSSWs7HvZk/edit?usp=sharing
WP
I suspect there was a minimal if not zero level of that sort of thing (until the failed relaunch in 1999, at least), but yeah, proving that might be an issue.
Assuming all the seller said is true, a dishonest Contributing Artist could stake a claim to something and there'd be nothing to show that they're being dishonest.
Assuming all the seller said is true, a dishonest Contributing Artist could stake a claim to something and there'd be nothing to show that they're being dishonest.