Channel closure conspiracy thread

(28-02-2015 02:40 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  In fairness to Rammy he did indeed back up the same sentiments as a lot of us have already come to the conclusion about despite the post admin made on behalf of the respective channels.

i think the issue here is the fact that you say admin made the post you quoted 'on behalf of the channels'. in fact he was passing on info he had received in a phone call at his own behest. your post reads and implies (intentionally or not) that admin is a mouthpiece for the channels, and ultimately calls into question the independence of the forum.

I've already made my statement on this terence, the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. To put it into simple terms then. Ok so maybe the wording might have been a little loose, would this be a more appropriate sentence to say.

Admin was relaying on the information given to him by the channel representative which is more or less exactly what I was saying. I will say it again, I never accused admin of anything, it was the channel representative that I said was talking bollocks.

Ok here's another scenario for you to consider. Channel 942 say is showing a S66 Channel, some bloke decides to pick up the phone and call the girl in question. Girl from Xtreme then returns after her break only to see that a would be caller is now plugging his money into Studio66.

It's like Babestation showing RLC on one of their channels. Ofcourse I'm going to challenge the statement and why not I ask ?

(28-02-2015 12:44 )terence Wrote:  your post reads and implies (intentionally or not) that admin is a mouthpiece for the channels, and ultimately calls into question the independence of the forum.

That's what I understood the point to be. Although Scottishbloke makes a serious attempt to downplay his comment, it's still reads as an attack on the independence and integrity of the forum. It's basically an act of treachery. I'm surprised that Scottishbloke can't see that.

Nice try barracuda - You've basically taken terrences post and made a play on words. Any fool could do that, mind you it makes a change from your usual automated trolling posts

The world just loves a keyboard warrier - Yeah and this treacherous member that you have just called me has uploaded a shit load of vids as have other members in order to give this forum credibility. Fuck me call the police and have me arrested now for treason why don't you - Idiot

I'm not having a go at anybody here, but the discussion we had yesterday in reference to people's wording is key here.

Would it be fair to Admin to suggest that had he started the message with "According to Krystal Niles" etc, etc, then this 'mouthpiece' feeling/implication might never have surfaced?

Yes I know the source of information was given in brackets at the bottom, but the information would have come across completely different should it have been worded in the fashion I've described.

Please let me try and explain -

The first example I gave you was of a "Here's what I know guys, hope this helps" type of tone, but the way it was written came across as "You are all wrong, and here's the facts and here's my proof ".

Do you see the difference?

So whilst Admin was only relaying the information he knows, it came across as unquestionable concrete fact rather than useful information of which it was intended.

So please forgive my observations Admin, I'm really not trying to be rude or obnoxious


Many of us have questioned the relationship between S66 and ExtremeFilth, and rightly so in my opinion.
Not because it really matters, but because it makes for good debates and without them the forum would be rather dull wouldn't it.

That's it

(28-02-2015 09:44 )admin Wrote:  

(26-02-2015 08:37 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  why, having gone to all the trouble of setting up the deal with ETV and initially promoting the launch, they suddenly dropped all promotion before the launch, and before they knew it was going to be a failure.

I discussed this with the 'tweeting department' yesterday and they were happy to explain. I was going to pass the information on, as that was the whole point of asking them about it in the first place, but have come to the conclusion that it would serve no purpose and even worse would lead to the usual forum arguments and recriminations etc.

The question about the U-turn on promoting the launch was a legitimate one, at least to anyone with a business brain. It seems you thought so as well, since you went to the trouble of passing it on. I get the impression from your post there was a simple explanation, but I guess we'll never know since you decided the forum couldn't be trusted with the information. That's your prerogative, of course, but if you're going to treat people like children, don't complain when they act like children.

I was in the middle of constructing a lengthy and funny (in my head, anyway) Dragons Den spoof post for this thread. I thought it would raise a few smiles and maybe lighten the tone of the thread a bit.
I spent an hour on it last night (I'm a slow typer) and I was going to finish it tonight and post it.
But, you know what? I have better things to do.

(28-02-2015 15:46 )Bandwagon Wrote:  ...
Would it be fair to Admin to suggest that had he started the message with "According to Krystal Niles" etc, etc, then this 'mouthpiece' feeling/implication might never have surfaced?
...

In the context of this particular row, that has to be the dumbest, most illogical suggestion

Ah, very good Munch, I see you too have been indulging yourself within the pages of the 'Silly & Unhelpful Book of Posts'
Looks like you've only just started though, it gets better so stick with it

This is a part of a comment on their website which they published 2 days after the start on Sky UK:

"Strangely enough, our viewers constantly talk about our revenue. Apparently the common opinion is that companies do everything to raise income and is not concerned with the quality of its products.

Interestingly enough, instead of dropping, our income increased after the implementation of the new restrictions.

This business works in mysterious and unpredictable ways. Anyway, even though we are happy for the rising profits and the expanded audience, we understand and are very concerned about the discontent which some of our long term viewers have towards the implementation of the new rules and even softer erotica."

^ According to ETV: "Apparently the common opinion is that companies do everything to raise income and is not concerned with the quality of its products."

I say the counterpoint common (for which we should apparently read misguided) opinion among operators is that "softer erotica" is, almost by definition, a higher quality product!

In the words of the song: It ain't necessarily so.