+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Forum: Member Introductions & Personal Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=87)
+---- Forum: The Twilight Zone (/forumdisplay.php?fid=84)
+---- Thread: Channel closure conspiracy thread (/showthread.php?tid=63917)
RE: Channel closure conspiracy thread - terence - 27-02-2015 16:27
(27-02-2015 14:49 )barracuda Wrote: Yes text can convey unintended meaning sometimes. I think that's why so many people see interviews they have given in published form and claim to have been misquoted. It happens so frequently.
that's why most forums have emoticons, not because they are fun and look cool but to convey tone and context. it's surprising how many people don't think to use them.
RE: Channel closure conspiracy thread - aaron - 27-02-2015 16:43
A very good point terence.
I think many posters could make more use of emoticons.
RE: Channel closure conspiracy thread - mr mystery - 27-02-2015 16:45
I would just like to place on record due to me getting mentioned in this thread that although my post is the first in this thread, i am not the author of this thread, i did not start this thread, i did not name this thread . Until now i have not posted in this thread titled "Channel closure conspiracy thread", my posts have been moved here .
I do not believe there is a conspiracy behind the closing of the broadcast of Eurobabes/ETV shown on "Babes From TV" Sky channel 945 . .
I totally believe there was a lack of calls as stated by admin, and ultimately this led to the closure.
I would also like to put on record seeing has my thanking habits have been mentioned, that i have thanked literally thousands of posts, some i may have interpreted wrongly and thanked them, other i thank when i agree with some of the stuff posted, this doesn't mean i agree or endorse every single thing written in all the posts i have thanked .
Also i was not picking holes in admins statement, i asked questions concerning Cellcast suddenly dropping all promotion of Eurobabes 3 or 4 days before they actually launched a new show they seemed (To me) to be very enthusiastic about to start with, they didn't give any promotion to it at all when it did launch either, to me they seemed to have lost the enthusiasm for it even before it failed ultimately due to lack of calls .
So i would also like to put on record i was not picking holes in what admin said about the lack of calls, and my questions were not based on me not believing what he said about lack of calls .
.
RE: Channel closure conspiracy thread - circles_o_o_o - 27-02-2015 16:52
(27-02-2015 16:45 )mr mystery Wrote: i did not start this thread, i did not name this thread .
SO....somebody wanted us to think that you did ?!
RE: Channel closure conspiracy thread - Bandwagon - 27-02-2015 17:10
Spot on Terrence, exactly that, it helps inject some playful (not so serious) undertone.
Here
you've earnt yourself a smiley 
(27-02-2015 16:19 )Schizoid Man Wrote: An example would be your thanks referred to above, which could easily be taken as agreement on your part that the information given in the post was accurate, which you have now explained was not the meaning you intended.
Not sure that's quite the same but I do take your point.
I was under the assumption that people were of a similar mindset to myself, meaning you can't read too much into the thanking system for many of the reasons I've already outlined. Also, to further add to that list you will often find people sticking together (friends) which I also think is perfectly fine.
(There I go again) 
RE: Channel closure conspiracy thread - winsaw - 27-02-2015 18:53
(27-02-2015 12:49 )Doc Holliday Wrote: To show I have no issue with you, I'm happy to make the point that winsaw also thanked the same post, only to post entirely contradictory information a few posts later on. In other words he thanked a post which he knew to be untrue.
i thanked it because i found it entertaining and had some interesting ideas in, so what if i knew part of it was not correct, if anything that's one of the reasons i thanked it because it got me thinking about what i knew which is what i posted after, had it not been for that post i would not have posted and info that some may of found of interest would not be out there,
i just thank what i like at that moment when i see it, i don't stop and think about the deeper meaning of a post, or agonize over if everything in it is 100% perfect and accurate
Cynthia Rothrock v John Kettley its on - Dan Volatile - 27-02-2015 19:35
(27-02-2015 16:27 )terence Wrote:(27-02-2015 14:49 )barracuda Wrote: Yes text can convey unintended meaning sometimes. I think that's why so many people see interviews they have given in published form and claim to have been misquoted. It happens so frequently.
that's why most forums have emoticons, not because they are fun and look cool but to convey tone and context. it's surprising how many people don't think to use them.
It's not that we don't think to use them Terry, it's just that we like to keep some of the more suggestible members of this forum guessing about the seriousness of our comments.
By the way can you shed some light on the rumour going round the caravan forum that the BBC have signed up Chuck Norris for an episode of Celebrity Antiques Road Trip where he will be squaring up to the former BBC weather presenter Suzanne Charlton?
RE:Thanking conspiracy thread - mr mystery - 27-02-2015 19:44
(27-02-2015 12:49 )Doc Holliday Wrote: EDIT: Most of the thanks have disappeared from the post mentioned above, but the original thankers were bandwagon, mr mystery and winsaw, as I have stated here.
Maybe there's a thanking conspiracy afoot
RE: [split] EuroBabes - Chat & Discussion - admin. - 28-02-2015 09:44
(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.
Where questions have been asked in the past I have sometimes passed on what I know or can find out, in the genuine attempt to be helpful. However this does not seem to be appreciated by anyone and has therefore never achieved anything, except sadly to act as a stimulus to the kind of arguments that the forum would be better off without.
Not only that but I'm now accused by Scottishbloke of posting "on behalf of the channels". This is a nonsensical claim, as the channels are fully able to post by themselves (and none of them have ever asked me to post for them). I'm all for freedom of speech, but accusing me of posting "on behalf of the channels" is a serious abuse of that principle.
RE: [split] EuroBabes - Chat & Discussion - Scottishbloke - 28-02-2015 11:50
(28-02-2015 09:44 )admin Wrote: Not only that but I'm now accused by Scottishbloke of posting "on behalf of the channels". This is a nonsensical claim
Wait a minute here admin, accusation is a very strong word to brand me with.
So I thought I would just set the record here. I never accused you of anything admin. Below is the post you made on behalf of the 3 channel affair. The reason I use the word behalf is because it was via a telephone conversation which you have stated within the statement.
(11-09-2014 14:14 )admin Wrote: The channel is not Studio 66 in all but name, because the show is an independent production. The cameramen for the show are not supplied by Studio 66 as claimed and neither are any producers or production staff. There are no Studio 66 producers in charge of content, although Studio 66 do monitor the channel output for Ofcom compliance. It's not true either to say that Xtreme Filth are only in charge of the girls, as they have total creative control over the channel output, subject of course to compliance with Ofcom's broadcasting code.
(Source of information: telephone conversation with Krystal Niles).
It wasn't you I was accusing it was the person that gave you the source of this information, I just don't happen to believe that Krysyal has been entirely honest about this. Yes I get your point that the channel reps could also have just as easily made the above statement which I would also have questioned at a later date.
The other night we had a 2 for 1 between a girl on Studio66 and Xtreme, doesn't this rather contradict the statement which the channel rep gave to you. Also we have scenario's where the Studio66 stream is duplicated on all the channels which were previously formerly all under the same name of Studio66.
This isn't a nonsensical claim admin and also why are you making me out to be the scapegoat in all of this, more than me has challenged the accuracy of the above statement. Also I haven't even posted about this subject on this thread and it was only because I spotted your post that it offered me the opportunity to make my defence