Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Appeal for calm
Appeal for calm [message #227396] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 02:33
phil.gerrard1  
Sorry to have to do this, but since it's been such a slow day I thought
I'd post the following:

The opinions and postings of obvious trolls are worthless.

Internet pseudo-polls are worthless.

Biased, ethically-challenged tabloid journalism (which includes just
about everything that passes as 'celebrity news') is worthless.

As a barometer of public opinion, subjectively-written, pathologically
biased websites are worthless.

If there's postable material to be found out there, check,
double-check, and triple-check the source to ensure that the opinions
expressed are backed up by verifiable fact. Then make your post.
Otherwise we're back into 'Diana Rigg ate garlic before kissing
Lazenby' territory: a lie finding its way around the world before the
truth has even had a chance to get its boots on.

Best

Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227398 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 02:41
JHause  
LOL

Haven't you heard, Phil? The world is in an uproar! It's this story of
Craig cruelly taking away Pierce Brosnan's God-appointed movie role
that is dominating world affairs, then following in a distant second is
some business in Iraq, the Olympics, etc. Nobody's talking about
anything else!!!

Didn't you see the TV footage when Eon released the white smoke from
the Vatican chambers to announce that a decision had been made?
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227401 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 03:55
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Sorry to have to do this, but since it's been such a slow day I thought
> I'd post the following:
>
> The opinions and postings of obvious trolls are worthless.
>
> Internet pseudo-polls are worthless.
>
> Biased, ethically-challenged tabloid journalism (which includes just
> about everything that passes as 'celebrity news') is worthless.
>
> As a barometer of public opinion, subjectively-written, pathologically
> biased websites are worthless.
>
> If there's postable material to be found out there, check,
> double-check, and triple-check the source to ensure that the opinions
> expressed are backed up by verifiable fact. Then make your post.
> Otherwise we're back into 'Diana Rigg ate garlic before kissing
> Lazenby' territory: a lie finding its way around the world before the
> truth has even had a chance to get its boots on.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

--- Phil, I don't know if this has been made apparent to you yet, but
this is the Wild Wild Web, you're not going to find literary nirvana in
groups and forums and message boards and the like. You're inevitably
going to face the gamut from one extreme to another, it's the nature of
the Web Beast and all the people using it. If you want rationality,
stick with carefully selected pen pals through snail mail, like it all
used to be back in the old and more literate days. This is the Age of
Junk, the quick cheap thrill, you're not going to get a steady diet of
rich offerings, only a lot of McDonald burgers and fries to plough
through to get to those occasional gourmet meals. To believe that
people should take the time to ensure that opinions expressed are
backed up by verifiable fact is to live in Disneyland, nobody is going
to do that. Hell, people don't even take the time to read each and
every post in a thread to get a complete picture of what is being said
before they get their often erroneous 2 cent kicks in. It's
unrealistic. Just being more selective as to what one responds to is
the best that can be expected and learning how to avoid the more
insipid entries is what should be mastered.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227402 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 04:15
JHause  
In other words, avoid WQ's posts.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227408 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 09:00
Barry King  
WQ wrote:
> Just being more selective as to what one responds to is
> the best that can be expected and learning how to avoid the more
> insipid entries is what should be mastered.

One can also see to it that one is contributing to the signal rather
than the noise. I believe that was Phil's point. It's obviously
impossible to stop the brain-dead from posting on an open forum, but
that fact does not oblige the sentient among us to mindlessly repeat
every fictoid that finds its way into print or onto the web.

--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227410 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 09:49
phil.gerrard1  
Barry wrote:

> One can also see to it that one is contributing to the signal rather
> than the noise. I believe that was Phil's point. It's obviously
> impossible to stop the brain-dead from posting on an open forum, but
> that fact does not oblige the sentient among us to mindlessly repeat
> every fictoid that finds its way into print or onto the web.

Exactly - and I'm sorry, WQ, but part of the point of the web is that
we have the ability to challenge this kind of nonsense and try to raise
the debate, rather than just letting it go and handing the argument
over to the Scojos and craignotbonds of the world. Merely saying 'oh,
there's a lot of crap out there - what does it matter if there's even
more?' won't do.

Best

Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227447 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 17:17
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Barry wrote:
>
> > One can also see to it that one is contributing to the signal rather
> > than the noise. I believe that was Phil's point. It's obviously
> > impossible to stop the brain-dead from posting on an open forum, but
> > that fact does not oblige the sentient among us to mindlessly repeat
> > every fictoid that finds its way into print or onto the web.
>
> Exactly - and I'm sorry, WQ, but part of the point of the web is that
> we have the ability to challenge this kind of nonsense and try to raise
> the debate, rather than just letting it go and handing the argument
> over to the Scojos and craignotbonds of the world. Merely saying 'oh,
> there's a lot of crap out there - what does it matter if there's even
> more?' won't do.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

--- No debates have been handed over to anyone. I could very well say
that the staunchly pro-Craig people in this group are just as rabid, in
their own individual ways, as the anti-Craig lot and that they're the
ones who have taken over. The interchange over Craig between the pro
and the anti groups IS the debate. Seems like the pro-Craigers appear
somewhat threatened by the fact that there are even anti-Craigers out
there expressing whatever points of view they have, legitimate or
otherwise. But then, the pro-Craigers themselves fail to recognize
that they're not exactly pristine philosophers in all of this either.
There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones who feel
threatened by a real debate, which is what there is now with Craig,
unbridled and, at times, untempered, are the ones who take it upon
themselves to act like "winners" against "losers". And you can try to
challenge this kind of "nonsense" all you want, but you know, it's a
self-defeating challenge because if in the next month or so a hundred
or a thousand more people join this group, half of them idiots and the
other half braniacs, the same thing will continue, nothing will change,
because those new people won't have read your plea for sanity as this
thread will be active history in just a few days time, if it lasts that
long, and no one's really even going to think about looking for it to
see what "should" and "shouldn't" be taking place in this group. The
only people out of the billion or more out there in the Wild Wild Web
that are reading this probably amount to maybe 20, 50 or maybe a 100
tops, after which this discussion will peter itself out. And that's
going to have an effect on anything? Nope, nada, not a thing. So
again, you fail to understand that for the kind of debate you seek,
this is not the arena for it. Join a debating club that has set rules
that people have to follow and where controls are more easily applied.
Here, it's called verbal bare-knuckling, you take the good with the bad
punches, although you can try to duck the bad and just take the good
hits.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227450 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 17:40
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones
> who feel threatened by a real debate, which is what
> there is now with Craig,

There isn't. There're comments about face-width, mock-up
pictures and ridiculous conspiracy theories. That's not
debate, that's the internet equivalent of the worst kind of
tabloid nonsense.

It deserves nothing but contempt.

The real debate about Craig as Bond starts in November, when
Daniel Craig plays James Bond in CASINO ROYALE and those
that are interested in genuine discussion and debate can all
post informed opinions.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas wants to push it, push it real good."
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227454 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 17:52
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones
> > who feel threatened by a real debate, which is what
> > there is now with Craig,
>
> There isn't. There're comments about face-width, mock-up
> pictures and ridiculous conspiracy theories. That's not
> debate, that's the internet equivalent of the worst kind of
> tabloid nonsense.

--- Within the context of what the Web is, debate includes all of that
and more. Don't expect Nobel Prize material.

> It deserves nothing but contempt.

--- Then don't engage yourself in this group. This group and any
others is not your property or any group of participants' property to
decide how it should function, this is common outlaw territory. Find
another arena more to your standards if you want elitist discussions.

> The real debate about Craig as Bond starts in November, when
> Daniel Craig plays James Bond in CASINO ROYALE and those
> that are interested in genuine discussion and debate can all
> post informed opinions.

--- I'll agree with you that the actual, as opposed to real, debate
about Craig will start in November and that's when we'll likely see
more legitimate arguments, but it certainly won't rule out the
inevitable frivolous postings that are bound to continue. Those will
go on forever, regardless.


> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas wants to push it, push it real good."
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227464 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 18:53
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- Within the context of what the Web is, debate includes all of that
> and more. Don't expect Nobel Prize material.

Funny pictures is debate? Insults is debate? Do I expect Nobel Prizes?
No, but common sense, intelligence and actual *debate* wouldn't go
amiss....

>> It deserves nothing but contempt.
>
> --- Then don't engage yourself in this group. This group and any
> others is not your property or any group of participants' property to
> decide how it should function, this is common outlaw territory. Find
> another arena more to your standards if you want elitist discussions.

Why should I? People here are more than capable of intelligent
discussion; I've read and participated in it for years. Who are you
to tell me where to go? It's "common outlaw territory" remember?

Did I say this group was my property? No. Did I say how it should
function? No, *you* did. If I choose to think somebody (one
of your "Outlaws" as you quaintly call them) is posting rubbish here
that deserves nothing but contempt then that is my right. Or
are you saying I am not allowed to do that?

It's outlaw territory remember...
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227475 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 20:03
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Within the context of what the Web is, debate includes all of that
> > and more. Don't expect Nobel Prize material.
>
> Funny pictures is debate? Insults is debate? Do I expect Nobel Prizes?
> No, but common sense, intelligence and actual *debate* wouldn't go
> amiss....

--- You're still missing the point. You're talking about debate in a
traditional sense; this is not a traditional, nor even an appropriate
venue, for any sort of genuine debate. Maybe we should start calling
this arena what it really is, a repository for discussions and rants
and goofballs, and recognize it as such, because that's the Web for
you. At least that's how I recognize it. I mean, there should be no
problem for you to just block out the irritants by not reading or
responding to them if you can't killfile them. I've done that with
JHause, who in his own way is Scojo-like. But unlike Scojo, who doesn't
take it upon himself to insult other posters but only the subject of
discussion, i.e. Craig, JHause often prefers to resort to blathering
childish insults with the vocabulary of an embryo rather than
contribute any meaningful contrary p.o.v., or even an actual humorous
one. At least a meaningful contrary p.o.v. is what I get from Scojo on
occasion. In fact, I think I could make an argument that if the
anti-Craig crowd can be considered as the Left and the pro-Craig crowd
as the Right, then JHause is the village idiot of the Right equivalent
to Scojo in the Left. So, you see, this is not a place where things
happen in the way you'd like them to happen. Life isn't even like
that. But, as you have some control in your life as to who you deal
with face to face, just exercise that same control over what posts you
read and don't read and respond to and don't respond to, and let the
rest slide into oblivion for you. Otherwise, you'll just go needlessly
bonkers over it - as you seem to be doing.

> >> It deserves nothing but contempt.
> >
> > --- Then don't engage yourself in this group. This group and any
> > others is not your property or any group of participants' property to
> > decide how it should function, this is common outlaw territory. Find
> > another arena more to your standards if you want elitist discussions.
>
> Why should I? People here are more than capable of intelligent
> discussion; I've read and participated in it for years. Who are you
> to tell me where to go? It's "common outlaw territory" remember?

--- Exactly. It is "common outlaw territory." But if you're not happy
here, find a happier place to be in. Accept the fact that this is
C.O.T. and deal with its imperfections because there's no way in hell
that you or I or Phil or anyone else can change the way it is. It has
its own way of being, good, bad and ugly. You can have your meaningful
discussions with those who contribute in a way that's meaningful for
you, I'm not stopping you. I'm just telling you that you can't change
the way this group is in whatever way it is, so it's pointless to even
throw it out there and say something like here are the rules as they
should be when in a month or two from now or a year from now you'll
have a whole new group of people added here who won't even be aware of
any of those rules. And do you think that if they were even posted on
a regular basis, everybody would abide by them? No. Because this is
C.O.T. - common outlaw territory. It's all in the natural ebb and flow
of a group such as this over which no one has control. And it's like
the old saying goes: can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. In
this case, can't take the crap, find a better venue - if you can find
one on the Web.

> Did I say this group was my property? No. Did I say how it should
> function? No, *you* did. If I choose to think somebody (one
> of your "Outlaws" as you quaintly call them) is posting rubbish here
> that deserves nothing but contempt then that is my right. Or
> are you saying I am not allowed to do that?

--- You're not saying all of those things but you're certainly implying
it. And what's the point of even saying that those who post what you
find disdainful should deserve nothing but contempt? What does that
accomplish? It doesn't change anything. You're still going to be
pelted with rubbish from here till Kingdom Come, by this present
generation of posters and future ones.

> It's outlaw territory remember...

--- I agree, but it seems you're still not accepting of the natural
existence of the bad and ugly of it that you can't do anything about to
get rid of it. If you don't read the stuff that you know or suspect
you're not going to like, based on past experience/history/poster, then
you'll be amazed how the quality level of what you do read will
increase when you just become more selective. It's worked for me.
There's no trick to it.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227476 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 20:06
JHause  
WQ wrote:
> ...responding to them if you can't killfile them. I've done that with
> JHause, who in his own way is Scojo-like. But unlike Scojo, who doesn't
> take it upon himself to insult other posters but only the subject of
> discussion, i.e. Craig, JHause often prefers to resort to blathering
> childish insults with the vocabulary of an embryo rather than
> contribute any meaningful contrary p.o.v., or even an actual humorous
> one.

Then as long as you aren't reading this, allow me to say you are the
biggest, dumbest blowhard that has ever been in this newgroup.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227478 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 20:32
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- You're still missing the point. You're talking about debate in a
> traditional sense; this is not a traditional, nor even an appropriate
> venue, for any sort of genuine debate.

Then why did you write:

"There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones
who feel threatened by a real debate, which is what
there is now with Craig,"

>> Did I say this group was my property? No. Did I say how it should
>> function? No, *you* did. If I choose to think somebody (one
>> of your "Outlaws" as you quaintly call them) is posting rubbish here
>> that deserves nothing but contempt then that is my right. Or
>> are you saying I am not allowed to do that?
>
> --- You're not saying all of those things but you're certainly
> implying it.

Woah! You're presuming to know what *I* think now? I've dealt
with nonsense on UseNet for years and Scojo is small potatoes
long ago in my killfile.

No, what I "couldn't take," was *your* suggestion that the nonsense
being posted here is "real" debate. *You* wrote that. It was
*your* comment I responded to. You then contradicted yourself in
your response. That's irritating too.

> And what's the point of even saying that those who post
> what you find disdainful should deserve nothing but contempt? What
> does that accomplish? It doesn't change anything. You're still
> going to be pelted with rubbish from here till Kingdom Come, by this
> present generation of posters and future ones.

So, perhaps you should forget your bitching about JHause for
the same reasons? Or stop whinging about Daniel Craig
because, come November, he IS James Bond.

What's the point? Opinions.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227482 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 21:50
phil.gerrard1  
Sorry to have brought the subject up in some ways. But looking back on
what's been said I think it may be the style of my post which sparked
the debate. If, rather than writing an 'appeal' in my usual prissy
English manner, I'd phrased it as a warning saying 'If you come here
and post crap, don't expect me not to call you on it, and if you carry
on, I'll killfile you', or perhaps better still 'If anybody posts
another pathologically ill-thought out anti-Craig message, they're
f***ing dead', would that have been 'outlaw' enough?

It's not about rules, but why shouldn't we express preferences about
what we do and don't want to see here, just as we do about everything
else to do with the Bond universe? If I can say 'I really don't want
to see another film like MR' what real difference is there in saying 'I
really don't want to read any more of this kind of s**t'?

Of course it doesn't make a great deal difference to the world outside.
Nor does anything else we do here. Mostly, it's just a way of passing
the time, and nobody, least of all me, is kidding themselves that it's
anything other. However, some lone dingbat, a person no more powerful
or well-connected than any of us who post on these fan forums, has
today managed to do this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4738536.stm

That *does* have repercussions, and if we don't have the power to stop
idiotic things like that happening, we might at least draw some comfort
from trying to keep our own neighbourhood troll-free. (I did drop the
BBC a line to question whether they should really be talking about an
organised campaign to boycott CR when no such thing exists, or at least
no such thing existed until this idiot set up the site. I would be
very surprised to receive a response now that the story's out there.
Oh well.)

Best

Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227486 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 23:28
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- You're still missing the point. You're talking about debate in a
> > traditional sense; this is not a traditional, nor even an appropriate
> > venue, for any sort of genuine debate.
>
> Then why did you write:
>
> "There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones
> who feel threatened by a real debate, which is what
> there is now with Craig,"

--- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that nobody
reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from start to
finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill shots, otherwise
you would've noted in a follow-up another post in this thread that I
said:

"You're talking about debate in a traditional sense; this is not a
traditional, nor even an appropriate venue, for any sort of genuine
debate. Maybe we should start calling
this arena what it really is, a repository for discussions and rants
and goofballs, and recognize it as such, because that's the Web for
you."

Since this is not an arena for any true or real debates in the
traditional argumentative sense, then redefine the term debate as
discussion or rant or free-for-all or what-have-you, because
essentially that's what all this is when you're writing in groups,
boards, forums, etc.

> >> Did I say this group was my property? No. Did I say how it should
> >> function? No, *you* did. If I choose to think somebody (one
> >> of your "Outlaws" as you quaintly call them) is posting rubbish here
> >> that deserves nothing but contempt then that is my right. Or
> >> are you saying I am not allowed to do that?
> >
> > --- You're not saying all of those things but you're certainly
> > implying it.
>
> Woah! You're presuming to know what *I* think now? I've dealt
> with nonsense on UseNet for years and Scojo is small potatoes
> long ago in my killfile.

--- Such over-defensiveness. What was that quote I once read
somewhere? It went something to the effect of:

The greater the intensity of a reaction on the part of one increases
the probability that the other person is right.

If I come across that quote again in its exact wording, I'll post it.
But it seems to be true with certain people in this group.

> No, what I "couldn't take," was *your* suggestion that the nonsense
> being posted here is "real" debate. *You* wrote that. It was
> *your* comment I responded to. You then contradicted yourself in
> your response. That's irritating too.

--- Remember, we're not having debates anymore. These are just
discussions, because the context of a group such as this doesn't allow
for a bonafide traditional debate. Meet me in a debating club and then
we'll be gentlemanly about everything, rules and all.

> > And what's the point of even saying that those who post
> > what you find disdainful should deserve nothing but contempt? What
> > does that accomplish? It doesn't change anything. You're still
> > going to be pelted with rubbish from here till Kingdom Come, by this
> > present generation of posters and future ones.
>
> So, perhaps you should forget your bitching about JHause for
> the same reasons? Or stop whinging about Daniel Craig
> because, come November, he IS James Bond.

--- Free speech allows me to bitch about JHause and whine about Craig
all I want or not at all. Your telling me to forget to do this is
exactly reflective of what I said earlier about those of your ilk:

"There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones who feel
threatened by a real debate [it's discussion now, remember?], which is
what there is now with Craig, unbridled and, at times, untempered, are
the ones who take it upon themselves to act like "winners" against
"losers".

Or more succinctly:

"...the ones who feel threatened by a real debate [now and forevermore
discussion]...are the ones who take it upon themselves to act like
"winners" against "losers"."

So, Mr. Thought Police, you're deciding, as a "winner," what I, as a
"loser," should forget about doing. Feeling threatened lately?

> What's the point? Opinions.

--- And what are opinions? Anything anyone wants to say from their
point of view about something, whether you like it or not. It can
never always be about what you only want to put your stamp of approval
on. That's just being pseudo-intellectually arrogant.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227487 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 23:48
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Sorry to have brought the subject up in some ways. But looking back on
> what's been said I think it may be the style of my post which sparked
> the debate. If, rather than writing an 'appeal' in my usual prissy
> English manner, I'd phrased it as a warning saying 'If you come here
> and post crap, don't expect me not to call you on it, and if you carry
> on, I'll killfile you', or perhaps better still 'If anybody posts
> another pathologically ill-thought out anti-Craig message, they're
> f***ing dead', would that have been 'outlaw' enough?
>
> It's not about rules, but why shouldn't we express preferences about
> what we do and don't want to see here, just as we do about everything
> else to do with the Bond universe? If I can say 'I really don't want
> to see another film like MR' what real difference is there in saying 'I
> really don't want to read any more of this kind of s**t'?

--- Because, and I think you should know this to be true by now,
depending on how the post or subject heading is phrased and depending
on the individuals moods and natures of the responders, people
sometimes go out of whack and misconstrue the real intent of the post
and, with the more sensitive lot, begin to take things unnecessarily
personally. The fact that you just admitted that maybe you should've
rephrased the word 'appeal' with some alternative description proves
how - to you alone, never mind to anyone else - the reaction to your
post isn't what you thought it would become. Posts, once they're up,
take a life of their own as they become distorted and mangled by other
people. A lot of posts begin with one clear subject in mind which is
even headlined in the subject heading, but in a short span of time, as
quickly as two or three posts later, the original subject can veer off
into a completely alien direction compared to where the thread began.
There are no controls here, so to try to find some where none can
possibly exist is futile. Just take everything with a grain of salt
and be selective as you can if you don't want to deal with the stuff
that annoys you, that's the best you can do. I've mastered that trick.

> Of course it doesn't make a great deal difference to the world outside.
> Nor does anything else we do here. Mostly, it's just a way of passing
> the time, and nobody, least of all me, is kidding themselves that it's
> anything other. However, some lone dingbat, a person no more powerful
> or well-connected than any of us who post on these fan forums, has
> today managed to do this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/default.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4738536.stm
>
> That *does* have repercussions, and if we don't have the power to stop
> idiotic things like that happening, we might at least draw some comfort
> from trying to keep our own neighbourhood troll-free. (I did drop the
> BBC a line to question whether they should really be talking about an
> organised campaign to boycott CR when no such thing exists, or at least
> no such thing existed until this idiot set up the site. I would be
> very surprised to receive a response now that the story's out there.
> Oh well.)

--- But look at the bright side of that posting. In reaction to it,
Min L Shaw started a thread wherein he wanted to engage posters into
another round of "Best of" in an attempt to bring together as many in
the group into some sort of "Let's Feel Good About Ourselves and Bond"
session. I put my 2 cents in. And, as is the nature of the beast, how
long will it be before even that well-intended thread loses its
original purpose and is overtaken by discussions in it on the pros and
cons of fishing at 3 a.m.?


>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227495 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 00:25
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>> --- You're still missing the point. You're talking about debate in
>>> a traditional sense; this is not a traditional, nor even an
>>> appropriate venue, for any sort of genuine debate.
>>
>> Then why did you write:
>>
>> "There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones
>> who feel threatened by a real debate, which is what
>> there is now with Craig,"
>
> --- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that nobody
> reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from start to
> finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill shots, otherwise
> you would've noted in a follow-up another post in this thread that I
> said:


You contradicted yourself. Then you cry about people making
cheap shots at you and then pull a cheap shot with me with
your cod-psychoanalysis which consists of "..doth protest too
much."

You implied that certain individuals (and I now see you
meant me) are threatened by real debate and I called you on
it. I see no debate. You then come back with a combination
of back-peddling worthy of a politician and off-tangent
cobblers worthy of nothing about the difference between
debate and discussion. It just reeks of the "creative rights"
nonsense I had to suffer a month ago.

> --- Free speech allows me to bitch about JHause and whine about Craig
> all I want or not at all. Your telling me to forget to do this is
> exactly reflective of what I said earlier about those of your ilk:

No, it is YOU who doesn't read the posts correctly. I was asking
a rhetorical question in response to your suggestion that I think
of going elsewhere for using my free speech.

> --- And what are opinions? Anything anyone wants to say from their
> point of view about something, whether you like it or not.

And what of your suggestion that I give up saying that I don't
like the nonsense posted here because it doesn't achieve
anything and think about going elsewhere?

> So, Mr. Thought Police, you're deciding, as a "winner," what I, as a
> "loser," should forget about doing. Feeling threatened lately?

"Mr. Thought Police"? Winners? Losers? Feeling threatened?

No, none of the above.

But the air stinks of hypocrisy....

....or am I allowed to say that?
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227497 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 00:42
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that nobody
> reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from start to
> finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill shots, otherwise
> you would've noted in a follow-up another post in this thread that I
> said:

Er, I might have noticed it if you hadn't posted it off *AFTER*
my response to you. You posted it as a response to me.

Am I supposed to use a time machine now?
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227498 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 00:48
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Am I supposed to use a time machine now?

God, I wish. Why not take us back to 1964 or so, probably the last
time there was any kind of happy consensus about the way the Bond
franchise was going?

Best

Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227499 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 00:54
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
>> Am I supposed to use a time machine now?
>
> God, I wish. Why not take us back to 1964 or so, probably the last
> time there was any kind of happy consensus about the way the Bond
> franchise was going?

You remember Charlie Higson's politician character in the
FAST SHOW?

What makes me laugh is that if you are prepared to give Craig a
chance you're "pro-Craig" and are immediately "threatened" by
a lone guy posting silly pictures and comments.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227500 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:01
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> You remember Charlie Higson's politician character in the
> FAST SHOW?
>
> What makes me laugh is that if you are prepared to give Craig a
> chance you're "pro-Craig" and are immediately "threatened" by
> a lone guy posting silly pictures and comments.

What strikes me is that if I genuinely felt 'threatened' by the
anti-Craig crowd, my reaction wouldn't be to challenge them. Taking
them on is not a sign that you feel threatened, it's the exact
opposite: a sign that you feel confident in being able to argue your
case.

Best

Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227501 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:05
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Mac wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- You're still missing the point. You're talking about debate in
> >>> a traditional sense; this is not a traditional, nor even an
> >>> appropriate venue, for any sort of genuine debate.
> >>
> >> Then why did you write:
> >>
> >> "There are no winners and no losers here, but the ones
> >> who feel threatened by a real debate, which is what
> >> there is now with Craig,"
> >
> > --- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that nobody
> > reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from start to
> > finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill shots, otherwise
> > you would've noted in a follow-up another post in this thread that I
> > said:
>
> You contradicted yourself. Then you cry about people making
> cheap shots at you and then pull a cheap shot with me with
> your cod-psychoanalysis which consists of "..doth protest too
> much."
>
> You implied that certain individuals (and I now see you
> meant me) are threatened by real debate and I called you on
> it. I see no debate. You then come back with a combination
> of back-peddling worthy of a politician and off-tangent
> cobblers worthy of nothing about the difference between
> debate and discussion. It just reeks of the "creative rights"
> nonsense I had to suffer a month ago.

--- Evidently, you really don't read the posts, do you? You simply
enjoy rattling off cheap thrill comebacks, right? Tell me that's what
it is so I'm clear on that. Because there's nothing in what you're
saying that's registering to me as an understanding on your part of
what I'm really saying. Your feedback is clearly not in sync with what
I'm relaying.

> > --- Free speech allows me to bitch about JHause and whine about Craig
> > all I want or not at all. Your telling me to forget to do this is
> > exactly reflective of what I said earlier about those of your ilk:
>
> No, it is YOU who doesn't read the posts correctly. I was asking
> a rhetorical question in response to your suggestion that I think
> of going elsewhere for using my free speech.

> > --- And what are opinions? Anything anyone wants to say from their
> > point of view about something, whether you like it or not.
>
> And what of your suggestion that I give up saying that I don't
> like the nonsense posted here because it doesn't achieve
> anything and think about going elsewhere?

--- Do I have to repeat my response to what is basically the same
question you asked before? You can say what you want to say, it's no
skin off my nose. But in the way you seem to express such a thing,
it's as if you make it sound like the whole world should side with you
and that everyone in this group would be better off if they did. I'm
saying that as much as you can say that, don't expect anybody to really
follow you on that en masse because it's not going to happen. The only
heaven you'll find in this hell of a group is the one you create for
yourself. Forget about everybody else and the expectation that they
should only think like this or act like that or post this or ridicule
that just to satisfy for you some unrealistic notion of an essentially
unattainable harmonious environment here. The chances of EON switching
actors to play Bond in production midstream of CR are greater than the
activities of this group aligning themselves to your desired ideal
parameters of how this group should be. And even if you did switch
groups and posted elsewhere, I doubt if it'd be that much different -
maybe a tad saner, maybe more absurd, but hardly much different.
That's the nature of the Web beast. Understand it, embrace it, and
you'll know how to deal with it without getting ulcers.

> > So, Mr. Thought Police, you're deciding, as a "winner," what I, as a
> > "loser," should forget about doing. Feeling threatened lately?
>
> "Mr. Thought Police"? Winners? Losers? Feeling threatened?
>
> No, none of the above.
>
> But the air stinks of hypocrisy....
>
> ...or am I allowed to say that?

--- Sure, you're allowed. Where's the hypocrisy at my end in that?
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227503 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:10
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that nobody
> > reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from start to
> > finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill shots, otherwise
> > you would've noted in a follow-up another post in this thread that I
> > said:
>
> Er, I might have noticed it if you hadn't posted it off *AFTER*
> my response to you. You posted it as a response to me.
>
> Am I supposed to use a time machine now?

--- Well, there, you see? Another failing in this whole posting
approach. People get their guns going before they wait to read the
ceasefire terms. That's why what goes on in groups, boards and forums
can't be called debates. The best we can call it all is just a
discussion. And that's what I've been saying all along. Don't raise
what is said in this group to the level of some kind of art when it's
mostly fleeting and disposable exchanges.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227504 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:13
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- Evidently, you really don't read the posts, do you? You simply
> enjoy rattling off cheap thrill comebacks, right? Tell me that's what
> it is so I'm clear on that. Because there's nothing in what you're
> saying that's registering to me as an understanding on your part of
> what I'm really saying. Your feedback is clearly not in sync with
> what I'm relaying.

Do I subscribe to your after-the-fact theory of "real" and "actual"
debate defined solely by its appearance on the internet?

No. I think it's rubbish.

Is that a "cheap thrill comeback" or an answer to your question?

The latter for me...
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227505 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:15
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
> > Am I supposed to use a time machine now?
>
> God, I wish. Why not take us back to 1964 or so, probably the last
> time there was any kind of happy consensus about the way the Bond
> franchise was going?
>

--- That WAS a great year. I'll take it again over 2006 any day. But
then, we also all had a Bond with universal appeal and 007 films that
were truer, if not entirely true [and let's not get carried away with
semantics again, I think we all know what we mean here] to the books
than they've been since that 60s decade.


> Best
>
> Phil
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227506 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:16
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>> --- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that
>>> nobody reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from
>>> start to finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill
>>> shots, otherwise you would've noted in a follow-up another post in
>>> this thread that I said:
>>
>> Er, I might have noticed it if you hadn't posted it off *AFTER*
>> my response to you. You posted it as a response to me.
>>
>> Am I supposed to use a time machine now?
>
> --- Well, there, you see? Another failing in this whole posting
> approach. People get their guns going before they wait to read the
> ceasefire terms. That's why what goes on in groups, boards and forums
> can't be called debates. The best we can call it all is just a
> discussion. And that's what I've been saying all along. Don't raise
> what is said in this group to the level of some kind of art when it's
> mostly fleeting and disposable exchanges.

.... you know what. Let's just call it a day. Life is too short.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227509 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:28
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Evidently, you really don't read the posts, do you? You simply
> > enjoy rattling off cheap thrill comebacks, right? Tell me that's what
> > it is so I'm clear on that. Because there's nothing in what you're
> > saying that's registering to me as an understanding on your part of
> > what I'm really saying. Your feedback is clearly not in sync with
> > what I'm relaying.
>
> Do I subscribe to your after-the-fact theory of "real" and "actual"
> debate defined solely by its appearance on the internet?
>
> No. I think it's rubbish.
>
> Is that a "cheap thrill comeback" or an answer to your question?
>
> The latter for me...

--- You're still discussing debate when we're not really debating here.
I don't know how you define debate, but I subscribe to the definition
of it as laid out in the Oxford Dictionary fo Current English:

Debate: Discuss or dispute, especially formally. Consider aspects of (a
question); ponder. Formal discussion on a particular matter. Discussion
(open to debate).

My understanding by that definition is that "debate" tilts towards
being "formal." This group is not in a "formal" context. Therefore,
there is no "debate" possible in a group context such as this. So it's
all discussion. So, yes, you think you were answering a question, but
you were actually making a cheap thrill comeback because I've already
put "debate" to rest and have taken up "discussion" instead. But you
keep going back to references to "debate." Stay on track or just get
off the rails already, 'cause otherwise you're only feeding me cheap
thrill comebacks. Follow the discussion if you're going to properly
engage in it. Read what's in it and not what you want to read into it
with some sort of view towards another cheap thrill comeback.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227510 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:30
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Mac wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- You see, this is what I keep stressing so many times: that
> >>> nobody reads these posts the way they're meant to be read, from
> >>> start to finish, all in an eagerness to fire off cheap thrill
> >>> shots, otherwise you would've noted in a follow-up another post in
> >>> this thread that I said:
> >>
> >> Er, I might have noticed it if you hadn't posted it off *AFTER*
> >> my response to you. You posted it as a response to me.
> >>
> >> Am I supposed to use a time machine now?
> >
> > --- Well, there, you see? Another failing in this whole posting
> > approach. People get their guns going before they wait to read the
> > ceasefire terms. That's why what goes on in groups, boards and forums
> > can't be called debates. The best we can call it all is just a
> > discussion. And that's what I've been saying all along. Don't raise
> > what is said in this group to the level of some kind of art when it's
> > mostly fleeting and disposable exchanges.
>
> ... you know what. Let's just call it a day. Life is too short.

--- Yeah, ok. I got some TV to watch anyway.
Re: Appeal for calm [message #227512 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:37
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- You're still discussing debate when we're not really debating
> here. I don't know how you define debate, but I subscribe to the
> definition of it as laid out in the Oxford Dictionary fo Current
> English:
>
> Debate: Discuss or dispute, especially formally. Consider aspects of
> (a question); ponder. Formal discussion on a particular matter.
> Discussion (open to debate).
>
> My understanding by that definition is that "debate" tilts towards
> being "formal." This group is not in a "formal" context. Therefore,
> there is no "debate" possible in a group context such as this. So
> it's all discussion. So, yes, you think you were answering a
> question, but you were actually making a cheap thrill comeback
> because I've already put "debate" to rest and have taken up
> "discussion" instead. But you keep going back to references to
> "debate." Stay on track or just get off the rails already, 'cause
> otherwise you're only feeding me cheap thrill comebacks. Follow the
> discussion if you're going to properly engage in it. Read what's in
> it and not what you want to read into it with some sort of view
> towards another cheap thrill comeback.

Then why did you write "real debate" in your post; the one I
responded to?

Afterwards, you offered your alternative theory (which I still don't
subscribe to, btw) in your response to me.

If you didn't mean debate you shouldn't have written it to begin
with. I can only go by what you've written.

If you see this as another cheap thrill shot then that is your problem.
Vorheriges Thema:Common sense article -- pretty funny
Nächstes Thema:With a younger Bond, no age
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 10:02:51 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 2,99541 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered