Channel closure conspiracy thread

My idea is, that they cover something theey dont wanna release. Where they come from, the models names and so on.

And they dont wanna hear what the customers want, they do it always "my Way" and i think ETV didnt wanted to be a Partner of Babestation.

On the other side, why they did Researches what goes and what not after they sihned an contract will be their mystery.

They have potential of course but the Artsy Fartsy Stuff instead of Sexual Things make them strange for me.

Have a nice day.

You can always rely on the 'pompous party' to belittle any persons queries or speculation.

Their posts quite often arrogantly begin with "No, not true"........

Oh do put us out of our misery and shower us with your superior knowledge and wisdom - ffs

First off. I like this being in a thread of its own. Much more scope to discuss and posts will not be confused with the rest.

Ok. I have a theory worth repeating/expanding upon and I certainly accept that my direct question to the channel was not answered. If I ever expected it to be. So here goes.

1. We all can reasonably accept that call volume was low. On the first night, the curious who knew zilch about heritage of this could have phoned and when curiousity was served that was it.

2. The channel was insistent that it could directly promote its web services. Cellcast could well have had another opinion about this and, since that was intrisent to the show, Cellcast could not risk the wrath of Ofcom. Also that web income was going direct to ETV whereas the phone income went initially to Cellcast. ETV, effectively, were screwing their partner.

3. ETV promised to change the program both to appease their core audience and their new partner which indeed they did. The changes were not sufficient to Cellcast and ETV would not budge further so they dropped it.

(26-02-2015 10:16 )Bandwagon Wrote:  Oh do put us out of our misery and shower us with your superior knowledge and wisdom

But surely the majority of people in the forum would like to be given correct information? Wouldn't they? Even if you perhaps don't?

I assume your comment above was intended to indicate that the accuracy of information isn't of paramount importance to you? Have I got that right?

Also, you thanked this post, which I'm assuming you knew contained a great deal of false information:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...pid1633068

I doubt if you believed the statements there made about Babestation, Playboy and Xpanded TV, but you still thanked the post.

Don't think I'm having a go at you because I'm not. I'm just curious as to why the accuracy of information is regarded as unimportant.

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.

The same post was also thanked by mr mystery, who was therefore knowingly endorsing a great deal of false information. I think the chances of him attaching any credibility to what said in the post was zero per cent, but he was still willing to give his endorsement to the false information. It makes it understandable why he's so keen to query channel closures and so on and create mysteries about things, if he believes in his own mind that the truth doesn't matter.

My question is a simple one. Why do you and others such as winsaw and mr mystery regard the truth as almost irrelevant? You seem to want to discuss things and form your own beliefs about things and whether those beliefs happen to be true or not makes no difference to you.

It seems a bit like a religion. You have your own 'theology' about things and don't want anyone intruding with a different view, even if that different view can be shown to be truthful. You say that you don't want to be showered with superior knowledge and wisdom, but isn't that exactly what religious types say when anyone casts doubt on their beliefs?

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.

^just to clarify, the thanks to that post are still there, they're just not visible. this is a by product of splitting posts from one thread to another.

Thanks for highlighting that Terrence, I would thank Digital Dave's post again if I could.
So why do people thank posts then Doc? Is it a sign of complete agreement? Or perhaps on occasion only partial agreement? Some people seem to thank in a manner of "thanks for taking the time to post at all"?
If you read further down that page you've linked you'll find my response to Digital Dave's post, there you will find your answer.
As for wanting to know the truth, yes of course that matters, but it's the fashion of presentation and the general tone that I sometimes have trouble with.
It's one thing to have a debate with all opinions welcome, and another for certain posters to deliberately imply ridicule on others with snotty smart arsed answers.

(27-02-2015 13:36 )Bandwagon Wrote:  So why do people thank posts then Doc? Is it a sign of complete agreement? Or perhaps on occasion only partial agreement?

I was asking you!

Take mr mystery, for example. He's told the channel which is the subject of this thread has closed because it made no money and responds by trying as hard as he can to pick holes in that statement, even though he has no evidence to the contrary. But when he knows that something is untrue he's happy to let it go unchallenged, makes no attempt at correction and even thanks the false information, giving other people the impression that he accepts it as truthful.

Anyway, enough of this, I'll move on now. I was only asking out of curiosity.

By the way, before I go, I'm not convinced that anyone has posted to deliberately imply ridicule on others. You may have taken it that way, but that's the way of the printed or published word sometimes. If you could hear their tone of voice I doubt if you'd take any offence.

Yes you are correct in such that the problem with reading text is that in can easily be misread/interpreted.
I've often wondered how people may take some of my posts at times because I can waffle shite and possibly seem offensive at times
However, as in the real world I like to give everybody a fair shake, I like to make sure that 'first impressions' are not misleading.
Some posters are continuously pompous throughout their posting history though, and will be treated as such by me (and possibly others) because they seem to show enough intelligence to suggest they know exactly how the tone of their wording will be received.

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.

(27-02-2015 14:07 )Bandwagon Wrote:  Yes you are correct in such that the problem with reading text is that in can easily be misread/interpreted.

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.