|
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
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250668] |
Do, 06 April 2006 01:11 |
|
On 2 Apr 2006 11:37:37 -0700, "WitsEnd" <witsend [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Disclaimer: I didn't join the thread during the "bad blood" incident
aand have no axe to grind...
[...]
>For some reason, you simply refuse to understand that Bernard posted
>all the information he had at the time. I sent his posting here. We
>did not have any other information to give to afp.
Agreed
>Again once again, for your sake: Anyone who wanted more information
>from the TV group was both welcome and free to ask for it.
Ah, there you got me... trying to find the site, I found
http://www.robertburnsmovie.com/, which press section was last updated
in 2002 and offers no possibility to email the company. So, no, sorry,
I don't see how people could have been able to ask the company more
information. Which is probably one of the reason why some people were
rather cautious about the film crew...
Of course, Bernard's email _was_ displayed in the original post and it
_would_ have been better had the people who thought being cautious was
a good idea to have checked with him beforehand. But I still think
that the reaction was, if somewhat exceedingly cautious, at least
understandable.
>When the afp upset happened, Bernard was told by the TV people - as
>they were canceling the invitation - a bit more about their plans.
>He posted that to his own group later on and the link to that posting
>was sent here. Again, he did not have that information before that
>point, and neither did I.
This is the crux of the issue, you see... the froup somewhat
over-reacted, but the TV people _also_ overreacted. They could -and
indeed should- have posted here to make their position clear before
abruptly deciding to withdraw their offer. If they could find about
what was happening there, they could also have posted to make their
position clear. Not taking the pain of posting here and _then_ blaming
the froup for their decision is, let's say, not very constructive...
>I am not going to defend or attack the TV people. If you wish to write
>to them with complaints about their handling of this situation, then
>please do so.
I'm not going to: I find them blaming the froup in such a fashion not
to be the best way to have handled the situation, but am not trying to
find a scapegoat for the fiasco. A misunderstanding _did_ happen, and
finding culprits and scapegoats may be very satisfying but not very
constructive...
I _do_ hope that some members of afp did write the company to, if not
grovel before the TV team and wallow in a sea of self-accusation, at
least offer apologies for the excess that _was_ present in some of the
posts.
But couldn't the people form the TV company have posted here, at least
for stating they were cancelling the offer due to afp's reception of
the offer? I'm sorry, but relying on a third party to lay blame on
somebody wihtout even deigning speaking to the "offending" party does
not strike me as very courteous either...
>And for the last time: Theorizing ahead of data is always tricky, as we
>have seen here.
Yes
> If individual members feel they have behaved well in
>this case, then no more need be said about it. If they have
>reconsidered what they said on-line, then it's their business to handle
>it.
AOL
>Since you argue so hotly that you were not involved in the
>original postings that irked the TV people, why jump in now? Stop
>trying to slay dragons that don't exist and treat the people here like
>grownups who can handle their own affairs.
No. Sorry, but I understand richard's point of view very well, and
share some of his opinions. The TV people have not been very nice to
the froup, you know? Yes, I understand their point of view. Yes, I'd
probably be pretty pissed off myself had I made a jesture to a froup
of people only to feel I was greeted with suspicicion and hostility.
But I'd have at least yelled directly at the group I was unhappy with
instead of relying on third-hand support.
.... and I _wouldn't_ have handed pepole who support my offer a nice,
juicy scapegoat...
For the record, I do _not_ think that you, personnally, have
overstepped the bounds of decency or courtesy: you've been civil and
informative, if somewhat (and understandibly) angry at us. But try to
understand that there is no reason for some people onfroup not to have
reacted as badly as the TV people did. Shouting at each other through
proxies is a lose/lose situation. So it is nice of you to take time
and effort to actuallt _discuss_ with the "other" party...
To sum up my POV:
- yes, reacting with suspicion without trying to gather more
information (especially since the original post came from Bernard,
whom we're _supposed_ to respect) was not a very good way to handle
matters.
- yes, the thread at one point forgot the original post and started to
drift towards the land of hearsay and wild speculation. This is a land
where Dragons, better left undisturbed, lay in wait for a nice juicy
rumour...
- no, the TV people are not blameless themselves. If they took the
time to read the thread, they should have posted. If they didn't how
do they dare lay the blame on us?
- yes, their reaction is nonetheless perfectly understandable: there's
nothing that hurts so much as offering a smile and being returned a
slap in the face
- so neither side in this little fray is either blameless or unhurt.
And, typically, each side tend to look at its injury and not see the
other's. Not nice, not very mature, but so very human...
And, in the end, I think I rather want to thank you for the effort of
not reacting all injured pride, but in a civil manner and with a will
to discuss the matter. And of course I'd like to _not_ take any side
in this little unpleasantness but am rather tempted to side with the
people I know and love than with the awful, bad, with a soul black as
sin, TV people ;-P
FiX
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250722 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 04:36 |
|
FiX said:
> - yes, their reaction is nonetheless perfectly understandable: there's
> nothing that hurts so much as offering a smile and being returned a
> slap in the face
What smile? All the group was offered was the information that a TV company
was after free extras. The "gesture of thanks" stuff didn't come to light
until afterwards.
"Come and work for us for free" is not "offering a smile", and "No, for all
sorts of reasons" is not a "slap in the face".
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250868 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 21:42 |
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:36:44 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>FiX said:
>> - yes, their reaction is nonetheless perfectly understandable: there's
>> nothing that hurts so much as offering a smile and being returned a
>> slap in the face
>What smile? All the group was offered was the information that a TV company
>was after free extras.
No. What we got was the information that Bernard had been issued with
the task of "finding 70 or 80 good folk, silly enough to want to
appear in a crowd scene." Which is _not_ the same at all..
And there were two perfectly valid email addresse that anybody with a
modicum of curiosity could have used to get more information before
jumping to conclusion.
>The "gesture of thanks" stuff didn't come to light
>until afterwards.
Uh-uh, you're so ruffled feather and all that you don't seem to have
realized that while the mail didn't offer all the information people
might have liked to have, the tone of the mail was pretty much "Hey,
Guys, I've just had this incredible offer, want to take part in it?".
Once again, the initial mail was not coming from the TV people fishing
for free extras, it was from Bernard offering fans an adventure. Has
we wanted to get additional information, it would have been very easy
to obtain...
>"Come and work for us for free" is not "offering a smile", and "No, for all
>sorts of reasons" is not a "slap in the face".
---sample reactions, taken out of context---
"I just think it reeks of "lets take advantage of the fans"."
"Not only can we get all these people to come and be in it for free,
but it'll be *another* reason why they'll want to buy the DVD when it
comes out"
---
So yes I can understand the TV people's reaction. I'm not taking side
there, just noticing that there was a misunderstanding, due in some
part to them, due in some part to us. So reacting all injured
innocence from _our_ side of the fence is not really that much more
justified than from their side...
.... and since when do we find the "it's them against us" mentality
that attractive?
FiX
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250881 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 23:33 |
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:42:13 +0200, FiX
<FiX01 [at] club.lemonde.fr> wrote:
>---sample reactions, taken out of context---
Which makes them sound a little worse than they were. BTW, I think the
second one had quotes originally, so really ought to have two sets now..
>"I just think it reeks of "lets take advantage of the fans"."
>"Not only can we get all these people to come and be in it for free,
>but it'll be *another* reason why they'll want to buy the DVD when it
>comes out"
>---
>
>So yes I can understand the TV people's reaction.
"Shit we've been rumbled"?
(I doubt it actually, just dropping back into extra-cynical mode for a
moment)
I think part of the misunderstanding would have been avoided if the
original offer had included the explanation that it was the great costumes
the TV company had seen that gave them the idea, and they wanted to give
something back to the fans. Or if somebody from the company had dropped a
note in here to explain, instead of just pulling the plug.
I'm still boggling over the power such a small subset of Pratchett fandom
apparently has.
--
Andy Brown
There's big sheep and little sheep. And the big sheep are called cows.
-- geekling, Devon, 2002.
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250892 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 00:23 |
|
FiX said:
<snip>
> Uh-uh, you're so ruffled feather and all
Nope, not in the slightest. I didn't take part in the initial discussion,
and that was a deliberate decision. I thought the offer a bit cheesy, but
didn't want to rain on anyone's parade, so I stayed out. I did take a view
on the reaction - which, IMHO, was reasonable - but since I wasn't planning
either to boycott the filming or join it, I think it's fair to say that my
feathers are all nicely preened, on this issue at least.
<snip>
> ... and since when do we find the "it's them against us" mentality
> that attractive?
Ever since reading Jingo. :-)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250907 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 01:17 |
|
From the Collected Witterings of jester, volume 23:
> I'm still boggling over the power such a small subset of Pratchett fandom
> apparently has.
Our name is Legion.
--
"My son is not a terrorist - he is a junior IT support officer."
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250932 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 03:51 |
|
David Chapman jedit_ojanen8 [at] hotmail.com wrote in
<e147n9$d4d$2$830fa79d [at] news.demon.co.uk>:
> From the Collected Witterings of jester, volume 23:
>
> > I'm still boggling over the power such a small subset of Pratchett fandom
> > apparently has.
>
> Our name is Legion.
>
YSTHM "Lego".
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250952 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 10:36 |
|
FiX wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:36:44 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
Having missed this originally, I've pretty much stayed out of it;
but there is one thing I would like to raise, as no-one else has
done so.
> So yes I can understand the TV people's reaction. I'm not taking
> side there, just noticing that there was a misunderstanding, due
> in some part to them, due in some part to us. So reacting all
> injured innocence from _our_ side of the fence is not really that
> much more justified than from their side...
Unfortunately, I think the request was not sent out into an entirely
neutral medium.
<fx: getting out the shovel>
Anyone remember the AFP movie project? The one 5 years ago that
didn't quite happen despite a lot of effort on the part of various
people, and caused a fair amount of bad feeling in the group?
Certain parts of the original announcement for this project *do*
remind me of the tone of some of the AfpMovie posts; and I notice
that a number of the people who were sceptical about the recent
announcement /were/ regulars on the group at the time.
I'm not in any way speaking on behalf of other people; especially as
they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, but I
suspect that a fair number of the long-term AFPers have something
of an inbuilt (and frankly justified) scepticism towards the "Hey!
let's everyone do this! It'll all just work and be fun!" sort of
announcement.
And that's the way the original post came across to me.
I'm not going to start saying what people should or shouldn't have
done; but I suspect that the original announcement was sent in the
assumption that everyone would welcome it with glad cries.
I also suspect that ancient history (well, in AFP terms) was a
factor in this not being the case.
Gideon.
--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #250984 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 13:38 |
|
Gideon Hallett wrote:
> Anyone remember the AFP movie project? The one 5 years ago that
> didn't quite happen despite a lot of effort on the part of various
> people, and caused a fair amount of bad feeling in the group?
The way I remember it, the movie really depended upon a small core of
afpers with relevant experience in dramatic productions etc, but as
bad luck would have it, some of these central players were interfered
with by Real Life with rather unfortunate timing. Once certain people
and their experience were out of the picture, realistic hopes for the
movie collapsed. But we all kept on hoping, anyway.
With better luck, things might have ended differently.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #251101 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 22:36 |
|
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:33:10 +0000 (UTC), jester <usenet [at] jester.nu>
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:42:13 +0200, FiX
><FiX01 [at] club.lemonde.fr> wrote:
>>---sample reactions, taken out of context---
>
>Which makes them sound a little worse than they were.
Yup. The idea was that this was what would have sttod out for people
who were already in "hurt innocence" mode. I was not, after all,
talking about what we said, but how what we said could be
interpreted...
>BTW, I think the
>second one had quotes originally, so really ought to have two sets now..
It did, and it originally had. But my inner grammar cop told me that
this was silly, and the the enclosing quotes had to be different than
the ones inside, and then I tried putting single quotes, then thought
that this did not match my sense of aesthetics, then... ;-P
>>So yes I can understand the TV people's reaction.
>"Shit we've been rumbled"?
<G>
>(I doubt it actually, just dropping back into extra-cynical mode for a
>moment)
>I think part of the misunderstanding would have been avoided if the
>original offer had included the explanation that it was the great costumes
>the TV company had seen that gave them the idea, and they wanted to give
>something back to the fans. Or if somebody from the company had dropped a
>note in here to explain, instead of just pulling the plug.
Agreed, and I basically expressed the same opinion in the first post I
made. I think it mainly was due to a broken chain of communication: TV
people -> Bernard -> mailing list ->afp but no return signal. So the
signal that came back to the TV people was distorted and they reacted
according to this signal.
I'm _paid_ to ensure that this kind of behaviour doesn't happen on the
client's IT ;-P
>I'm still boggling over the power such a small subset of Pratchett fandom
>apparently has.
So do I. And once again, we never got any information directly from
the TV people, but only hearsay... as far as I've been told, the TV
people cancelled the operation due to afp. As far as I _know_, the
head of the TV people tried wooing a Pratchett fan, failed and took a
petty revenge... O:-)
FiX
|
|
|
| Re: Gathering Nuts in May - DW fans to be in Pratchett film [message #251105 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 22:44 |
|
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:36:23 +0100, Gideon Hallett
<diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
>FiX wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:36:44 +0000, Richard Heathfield
>> <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Having missed this originally, I've pretty much stayed out of it;
>but there is one thing I would like to raise, as no-one else has
>done so.
>> So yes I can understand the TV people's reaction. I'm not taking
>> side there, just noticing that there was a misunderstanding, due
>> in some part to them, due in some part to us. So reacting all
>> injured innocence from _our_ side of the fence is not really that
>> much more justified than from their side...
>Unfortunately, I think the request was not sent out into an entirely
>neutral medium.
><fx: getting out the shovel>
>
>Anyone remember the AFP movie project?
Yup
>The one 5 years ago that
>didn't quite happen despite a lot of effort on the part of various
>people, and caused a fair amount of bad feeling in the group?
Yup
>Certain parts of the original announcement for this project *do*
>remind me of the tone of some of the AfpMovie posts; and I notice
>that a number of the people who were sceptical about the recent
>announcement /were/ regulars on the group at the time.
I hadn't though of that, but you're probably right.
>I'm not in any way speaking on behalf of other people; especially as
>they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, but I
>suspect that a fair number of the long-term AFPers have something
>of an inbuilt (and frankly justified) scepticism towards the "Hey!
>let's everyone do this! It'll all just work and be fun!" sort of
>announcement.
Ah, well, can't speak for others, but I'm a 4yo mentally, so cries of
"nice! *shiny*!" always catch my ears...
>And that's the way the original post came across to me.
Agreed
>I'm not going to start saying what people should or shouldn't have
>done; but I suspect that the original announcement was sent in the
>assumption that everyone would welcome it with glad cries.
Yes. And that's in part why I feel I understand the reaction of the TV
people: the ones that were the most put out at the end of the Movie
project were, of course, the ones who had put time and energy in the
porject and who felt that they had been "let down" by the others from
the froup. Same cause, same consequence...
>I also suspect that ancient history (well, in AFP terms) was a
>factor in this not being the case.
Gosh, I'm _old_! Don't do this to my poor tender heart, it now bleeds
and all because of you! You, yourself are the one to blame, _Baaad_
Gideon!!!
FiX O:-)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 02:33:42 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02490 Sekunden |
