| Petition update [message #227905] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 01:55 |
|
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?letter& ;101
It seems they're not even as scrupulous as they claim to be in checking
for multiple entries from people who aren't even *trying* to conceal
the fact that they're attempting to rig the petition. Scroll through
and spot how many names appear several times.
It gave me a laugh anyway.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227909 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:12 |
|
I'm highly doubtful that they'll recast Bond because of that...
DEAL WITH IT!
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1141088130.022028.300920 [at] t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?letter& ;101
>
> It seems they're not even as scrupulous as they claim to be in checking
> for multiple entries from people who aren't even *trying* to conceal
> the fact that they're attempting to rig the petition. Scroll through
> and spot how many names appear several times.
>
> It gave me a laugh anyway.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227910 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:19 |
|
Steve Worek wrote:
> I'm highly doubtful that they'll recast Bond because of that...
>
> DEAL WITH IT!
A cursory glance through the signatures will also reveal many comments
along the lines of 'you people need to get a life' and 'come on, he's
not so bad a choice', revealing that there are plenty of Craig-neutral
and pro-Craig idiots as well. Why sign the petition if that's how you
feel?
In any case, anybody who wishes to quote the number of signatures to
demonstrate the strength of anti-Craig sentiment has got to be, well, a
bit, um, naive, to use the kindest word I can think of.
What a sad little footnote this craignotbond nonsense is turning out to
be.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227912 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:31 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Steve Worek wrote:
>
>> I'm highly doubtful that they'll recast Bond because of that...
>>
>> DEAL WITH IT!
>
> A cursory glance through the signatures will also reveal many comments
> along the lines of 'you people need to get a life' and 'come on, he's
> not so bad a choice', revealing that there are plenty of Craig-neutral
> and pro-Craig idiots as well. Why sign the petition if that's how you
> feel?
>
> In any case, anybody who wishes to quote the number of signatures to
> demonstrate the strength of anti-Craig sentiment has got to be, well,
> a bit, um, naive, to use the kindest word I can think of.
>
> What a sad little footnote this craignotbond nonsense is turning out
> to be.
Why doesn't someone come up with a "Give Craig a Chance" petition?
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks,
"Everybody's talking about Q-less, Penny-less, Clue-less
Cubby-less, Pierce-less, EON,
All we are saying....."
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227913 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:37 |
|
Mac wrote:
> Why doesn't someone come up with a "Give Craig a Chance" petition?
I hate to think of the cranks it would attract ;-)
Best
Phil
(I was about to add that some people just like seeing their name in
print, until I realised how many posts I'd made today...)
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227914 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 03:00 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> (I was about to add that some people just like seeing their name in
> print, until I realised how many posts I'd made today...)
It's time for a tally from:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V216527BC
With the UBIQUITOUS Tom Z hiding his light under a bushel in the past week
or so, but STILL (and I emphasise that "STILL" in the way the Shatner
emphasised "STILL" when taunting Khan about "...missing the target!)
managing to weigh in at number two for the year!
What amazes me Philip, is that you appear at both number 7 and 32....
1|jhause [at] aol.com
2|rtomz [at] comcast.net
3|"La La Cupcake (the unkno..
4|wq [at] email.com
5|see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin
6|gshatterhand [at] aol.com
7|"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.co..
8|willt65 [at] comcast.net
9|Rich Handley <rhandley [at] op..
10|"Tim Pollard" <timpollard..
11|trustmeimalawyer2 [at] yahoo.com
12|nickxylas [at] wmconnect.com
13|rh1n0 [at] %blueyonder%.co.uk
14|holvbphoto [at] optonline.net
15|Draugnar [at] gmail.com
16|jameshunter [at] videotron.ca
17|jra_page [at] yahoo.com
18|giddy [at] dalesdenizen.net
19|dgates [at] spamlinkline.com
20|carcharias_1966 [at] yahoo.com
21|K [at] stackmail.com
22|keesboer [at] integrity-comput..
23|lensman1955 [at] hotmail.com
24|mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net
25|jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com
26|moonraker79 [at] excite.comPLI..
27|rubylustre [at] yahoo.com
28|timscurtin [at] aol.com
29|jabei [at] btinternet.com
30|ftseng2749 [at] aol.com
31|draugnar [at] yahoo.com
32|"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.co
33|neolib007 [at] yahoo.com
34|rbxb [at] hotmail.com
35|edrhodes [at] hotmail.com
36|dperry [at] uiuc.edu
37|knightofneon [at] spamex.com
|38|filmspamawayeric [at] earthlin..
39|leeinlimbo [at] gmail.com
40|"Blofelds Cat" <nospam [at] my..
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227919 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 11:01 |
|
Mac wrote:
> What amazes me Philip, is that you appear at both number 7 and 32....
Curse you, Mac - my cunning plan to artificially inflate the number of
pro-Craig posters has been foiled. If only I'd chosen a more
convincing alias than philgerrard1...
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227926 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 16:03 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:46hp59Fb5l6fU1 [at] individual.net...
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> (I was about to add that some people just like seeing their name in
>> print, until I realised how many posts I'd made today...)
>
> It's time for a tally from:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?V216527BC
>
> With the UBIQUITOUS Tom Z hiding his light under a bushel in the past week
> or so, but STILL (and I emphasise that "STILL" in the way the Shatner
> emphasised "STILL" when taunting Khan about "...missing the target!)
> managing to weigh in at number two for the year!
>
> What amazes me Philip, is that you appear at both number 7 and 32....
>
>
>
> 1|jhause [at] aol.com
> 2|rtomz [at] comcast.net
> 3|"La La Cupcake (the unkno..
> 4|wq [at] email.com
> 5|see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin
> 6|gshatterhand [at] aol.com
> 7|"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.co..
> 8|willt65 [at] comcast.net
> 9|Rich Handley <rhandley [at] op..
> 10|"Tim Pollard" <timpollard..
> 11|trustmeimalawyer2 [at] yahoo.com
> 12|nickxylas [at] wmconnect.com
> 13|rh1n0 [at] %blueyonder%.co.uk
> 14|holvbphoto [at] optonline.net
> 15|Draugnar [at] gmail.com
> 16|jameshunter [at] videotron.ca
> 17|jra_page [at] yahoo.com
> 18|giddy [at] dalesdenizen.net
> 19|dgates [at] spamlinkline.com
> 20|carcharias_1966 [at] yahoo.com
> 21|K [at] stackmail.com
> 22|keesboer [at] integrity-comput..
> 23|lensman1955 [at] hotmail.com
> 24|mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net
> 25|jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com
> 26|moonraker79 [at] excite.comPLI..
> 27|rubylustre [at] yahoo.com
> 28|timscurtin [at] aol.com
> 29|jabei [at] btinternet.com
> 30|ftseng2749 [at] aol.com
> 31|draugnar [at] yahoo.com
> 32|"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.co
> 33|neolib007 [at] yahoo.com
> 34|rbxb [at] hotmail.com
> 35|edrhodes [at] hotmail.com
> 36|dperry [at] uiuc.edu
> 37|knightofneon [at] spamex.com
> |38|filmspamawayeric [at] earthlin..
> 39|leeinlimbo [at] gmail.com
> 40|"Blofelds Cat" <nospam [at] my..
Hold ON!
As I take a look at this data, it is ranked by "Days Active", not on total
posts. In fact Mr. Mac, you have "out-posted" me 379 to 266 during this
time period, and that number also places you SOLIDLY at #2, just behind Mr.
Hause.
Reticent is not a word many associate with you, sir.
So there.
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he wished he had as much time to fanny about on the Internets as some
people....."
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227933 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 17:18 |
|
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> Hold ON!
>
> As I take a look at this data, it is ranked by "Days Active", not on
> total posts. In fact Mr. Mac, you have "out-posted" me 379 to 266
> during this time period, and that number also places you SOLIDLY at
> #2, just behind Mr. Hause.
>
> Reticent is not a word many associate with you, sir.
>
> So there.
ROTFLMAO! He's back!
What are days active? Is that how many days one spends here? That
would indicate you have had *more* time to spend here, whereas I have
posted a lot when I've actually been here, which would appear to be
four less days than you.
Still, not as bad as your 160 days to my 95 of last year....
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas is a stone supplier to denizens of glass houses."
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227939 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 17:54 |
|
even adding my two names together(went to bellsouth, briefly), I am
only at 139. I am humbled to be in the company of such posting giants
on AFJB.
however, in a reality check, note that after tom z., the next two
biggest posters were scojo in two of his incarnations.
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227977 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 04:39 |
|
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?letter& ;1
> 01
> It seems they're not even as scrupulous as they claim to
> be in checking for multiple entries from people who aren't
> even *trying* to conceal the fact that they're attempting
> to rig the petition. Scroll through and spot how many
> names appear several times.
> It gave me a laugh anyway.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
Geez, Phil -- I don't understand why you seem to be so upset
over this issue. So some people have decided to boycott the
film. Big deal. It's not worth losing any sleep over.
Personally, I have no interest at all in seeing the film.
Certainly not at the theater, and maybe not as a rental
either. But that's my choice, and it may change later on
down the road if I hear good things about the film. But I
certainly hope my decision doesn't cause you any personal
grief.
--Mike
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227980 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 06:15 |
|
Mike Feeney wrote:
> > http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?letter& ;1
> > 01
> > It seems they're not even as scrupulous as they claim to
> > be in checking for multiple entries from people who aren't
> > even *trying* to conceal the fact that they're attempting
> > to rig the petition. Scroll through and spot how many
> > names appear several times.
> > It gave me a laugh anyway.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Phil
> >
>
> Geez, Phil -- I don't understand why you seem to be so upset
> over this issue. So some people have decided to boycott the
> film. Big deal. It's not worth losing any sleep over.
>
> Personally, I have no interest at all in seeing the film.
> Certainly not at the theater, and maybe not as a rental
> either. But that's my choice, and it may change later on
> down the road if I hear good things about the film. But I
> certainly hope my decision doesn't cause you any personal
> grief.
>
> --Mike
Doesn't bother me, but it kind of makes me queazy that you'll be
watching Moonraker instead. Although to see you posting on a Bond group
every day and then read that you have no interest in seeing what the a
brand new Bond film is like strikes me as a little dishonest.
|
|
|
| Re: Petition update [message #227992 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 11:25 |
|
Mike wrote:
> Geez, Phil -- I don't understand why you seem to be so upset
> over this issue. So some people have decided to boycott the
> film. Big deal. It's not worth losing any sleep over.
>
> Personally, I have no interest at all in seeing the film.
> Certainly not at the theater, and maybe not as a rental
> either. But that's my choice, and it may change later on
> down the road if I hear good things about the film. But I
> certainly hope my decision doesn't cause you any personal
> grief.
Not in the least, and your personal choice and opinions are not
problems for me. The issue for me is that a small number of people
styling themselves 'Bond fans' have taken it upon themselves to speak
for the rest of us, and a few news sources have taken it a lot more
seriously than it deserves. That's where I've got a problem. You're
saying 'I don't like the look of CR, and I don't think I'm going to
bother seeing it', which is cool and I respect that perfectly. The
craignotbond crowd are saying 'Every true Bond fan in the world
despises Craig and will boycott CR, and we have the numbers to prove
it', and *that's* what I'm making a rather lame effort to challenge.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
