impdb.org

IGCD

[ Login ]

1946 MG TC

1946 MG TC in Heartbeat, TV Series, 1992-2009 Ep. 07.18

Class: Cars, Convertible — Model origin:

1946 MG TC

00:32:15 Background vehicle

Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
dsl ◊ 2023-09-15 12:00	Probably MG. More pics were promised.....
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 13:20	"More pics were" NOT "promised", I simply commented more views were available if required
dsl ◊ 2023-09-15 13:36	Profuse apologies for not grasping the subtleties of your phrasing. But they are required for a proper ID.
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 15:04	There phrase "more views are available if required" is simple, straightforward and without subtlety. 25 images per second are available from the specified time.
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2023-09-15 16:33	If there are images that are available that provide a better chance of identification, and you want the vehicle to be identified by one of us, it might be a good idea to post one of them. Prewar MGs are extremely difficult to identify with any accuracy, since a lot of the parts were used on more than one vehicle type. Many of us do this for the interest, in my case to stave off the effects of age related brain fade. A stroppy attitude will gain you nothing more than opprobrium, and if you wish to initiate a stroppiness contest, you may find you are swimming in deeper water than you want to. -- Last edit: 2023-09-15 16:56:28
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 17:20	johnfromstaffs wrote If there are images that are available that provide a better chance of identification, and you want the vehicle to be identified by one of us, it might be a good idea to post one of them. Prewar MGs are extremely difficult to identify with any accuracy, since a lot of the parts were used on more than one vehicle type. Many of us do this for the interest, in my case to stave off the effects of age related brain fade. A stroppy attitude will gain you nothing more than opprobrium, and if you wish to initiate a stroppiness contest, you may find you are swimming in deeper water than you want to. Please do not try to goad me into a stroppiness contest because I consider myself to be a formidable opponent in that respect. A stroppiness contest is not in anyone's best interest. I do not consider myself to have been "stroppy", in spite of responses I have received from others, which reasonably would not necessarily illicit the best responses. IMCDB is simply a community of what should be like-minded individuals with a mutual interest in identifying vehicles in films and television productions, which is my principal interest and the only reason I contribute to IMCDB. It would be ideal if we could all do that in as convivial manner as possible and, in the main, this has been my experience in the comparatively short time I have been submitting contributions to IMCDB. However, more recently the direction of travel of my experience of being a contributor has been one that I feel I have received an increasingly unwelcome degree of needle from others, to the extent I have felt goaded into confrontation and conflict, which I have resisted. If I receive a response that I am not 100% satisfied with, I will respond in as respectful manner as possible. In this regard, people should reasonably expect to get from me what they give. So, if others want the best from me, they need to lead by example and give me the best of them, simples. This is all only about identifying vehicles, so let's all agree to commit to doing so in as mutually convivial a manner as possible. -- Last edit: 2023-09-15 17:24:48
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2023-09-15 17:43	I do not intend to goad you into anything. Can’t be bothered.
Lateef ◊ 2023-09-15 17:45	@HartyBeats: just to explain the situation to you: the other admins and I are getting fed up with your uncooperative attitude. I think it's time you get off that high horse of yours, stop beating about the bush and start listening to what others say. We explained to you over and over why we regroup cars on IMCDb and what the definition of a car used by a character is and you either ignore us or get angry. Normal users listen to feedback from others, especially from admins. You submitted this MG, i.e. it's partly your responsibility to make it as easy to identify as possible - because you did want it identified, didn't you? Then, get on with providing thumbs so that other members may identify it, pretty please with sugar on top. You seem to be very hung up on accuracy and all so it's the least you could do. This view alone is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 17:48	johnfromstaffs wrote I do not intend to goad you into anything. Can’t be bothered. For the record, I cannot think of any instance where you have goaded me into conflict
tore-40 ◊ 2023-09-15 18:18	HartyBeats wrote There phrase "more views are available if required" is simple, straightforward and without subtlety. 25 images per second are available from the specified time. Episode?
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 18:20	Lateef wrote @HartyBeats: just to explain the situation to you: the other admins and I are getting fed up with your uncooperative attitude. I think it's time you get off that high horse of yours, stop beating about the bush and start listening to what others say. We explained to you over and over why we regroup cars on IMCDB and what the definition of a car used by a character is and you either ignore us or get angry. Normal users listen to feedback from others, especially from admins. You submitted this MG, i.e. it's partly your responsibility to make it as easy to identify as possible - because you did want it identified, didn't you? Then, get on with providing thumbs so that other members may identify it, pretty please with sugar on top. You seem to be very hung up on accuracy and all so it's the least you could do. This view alone is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Your response does not move us nearer towards the convivial environment I have suggested we try to return to. Using language like "high horse", suggesting I am anything other than a "normal user" and sarcastically saying "pretty please with sugar on top" reasonably does not necessarily illicit the best response. I have made clear I believe and will always believe a vehicle should only be merged with another vehicle when it is clear the vehicle is a duplicate of another vehicle and in no other circumstances and certainly not it is simply the same make and model of another vehicle. That said, I have no choice than to reluctantly accept it is IMCDB practice to merge vehicles of similar make and model and, despite your suggestion to the contrary, it is NOT something I persistently express and I have only mentioned it here because you did. When I submitted this entry, I added the comment "more views were available if required". After validation, my comment was removed and replaced with a comment "More pics were promised". Since, a "promise" misrepresents my removed comment, I simply highlighted "more pics were" NOT "promised" and I had simply commented more views were available if required. Of the infinite responses I could have subsequently received, one could have been a genuine apology, but I consider the response I actually received to be unnecessarily sarcastic, a response others would reasonably not expect to receive and a response that reasonably does not illicit best reaction from me. Others might find they receive the more cooperative approach from me, if they lead by example and demonstrate the cooperative approach they expect, simples.
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 18:24	tore-40 wrote Episode? The episode is 07.18, which was provided with the original submission, but was removed after validation.
Lateef ◊ 2023-09-15 18:42	HartyBeats wrote Your response does not move us nearer towards the convivial environment I have suggested we try to return to. I have news for you boyo, it's getting to the point of no return lest you change your attitude. If you keep at it you're looking at a contribution timeout or even a ban. I am just telling you how things are looking for you now. I do not need your lessons for what I should have said or could have said to you in order to make you compliant or warm up to me or whatever.
HartyBeats ◊ 2023-09-15 19:35	Lateef wrote I have news for you boyo, it's getting to the point of no return lest you change your attitude. If you keep at it you're looking at a contribution timeout or even a ban. I am just telling you how things are looking for you now. I do not need your lessons for what I should have said or could have said to you in order to make you compliant or warm up to me or whatever. And I am equally highlighting the experience I have been having.
tore-40 ◊ 2023-09-15 19:36	A view of the front, else nothing distinct found
dsl ◊ 2023-09-15 21:28	Looks like 4-seater, big wheels for (small) size, chrome headlights. Fairly sure pre-WW2, thinking PA or PB Midget, but not solid idea. Slightly confused by what looks like extended outwards spare wheel mount compared to book pics, but might simply be that hood has been removed??
johnfromstaffs ◊ 2023-09-15 21:40	Just a thought- Link to "www.rhclassics.co.uk"
dsl ◊ 2023-09-15 21:49	Nice, but deeper angled door cut-outs here. jfs here pulling an admin. trick for the first time: agreed, but I’d checked out Riley Sprites, don’t think it’s a Singer 9, not much left, probably MG, but not definitive. -- Last edit: 2023-09-15 21:57:06 (johnfromstaffs)
Sandie ◊ 2023-09-15 22:04	I've looked at NG, Vincent MPH etc in case it is something that just looks old rather than a genuine oldie... But no joy there.

Add a comment