Hard Candy - Page 2

King of Snake · #11 10-28-2006, 11:58 PM

whatever man

stimpee · #12 10-29-2006, 01:42 AM

I'm with KoS on this one. I've never heard of Hard Candy. Just because its in Treatment that means its the title of a film that I should check on IMDB?

Why dont we just create a thread for every film released but with no content in it? Attempting to say something about a movie and maybe providing the link to imdb and or trailer wouldnt be that much of an effort.

luke · #13 10-29-2006, 01:00 AM

Yeah, ok, maybe you two can put this up as 'BOARD RULES' then.

Fuck. That.

Eikman · #14 10-29-2006, 01:25 AM

luke rules. and you are all a bunch of fags.

King of Snake · #15 10-29-2006, 01:32 AM

careful eike, or I will post compromising pictures of you on the innernets

Luke, don't be a drama queen please.
Why is it that every time someone has something critical to say about the way some people post it's always like "oh where is the RULE then? Why don't you make it the new RULES blablabla" in some whiny "Help Help I'm being repressed!" kind of voice?

I'm just making a comment based on my own views. Stimpee is also just making a comment, no one is saying anything about RULES.

BeautifulBurnout · #16 10-29-2006, 01:38 AM

Gonna have to wade in here. You are a forum user, KoS, same as jOHN or Luke or me. Stimpee is the forum Moderator and as such has a "different" voice than anyone else here. Which means, rightly or wrongly, his posts can appear authoratative in nature, which is what has happened in this instance.

Not everything he posts is from a Mod's (authoratative) point of view, obviously. That needs to be borne in mind. But also people need to have some inkling of whether he is talking as "Stimpee the Mod" or simply "Stimpee". Otherwise they will inevitably see comments like this as over-moderation.

King of Snake · #17 10-29-2006, 02:36 AM

just fyi, luke's first response was before Stimpee even posted in this thread.

Also, I'm sure that whenever Stimpee posts something from a moderator's perspective, he will makes this clear in the post. That some people choose to deliberately misinterpret his posts as being moderator commands all the time just to stir up some shit is their problem. There was absolutely nothing in his or my post that hinted at it being anything other than a personal opinion.
People are free to ignore it, I was just trying to explain what I thought the "problem" with the original post was. Now it's all turning into some kind of big deal that it was never intended to be.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ · #18 10-29-2006, 05:09 AM

like, wow.

Jason Roth · #19 10-29-2006, 06:48 AM

Hard Candy: http://img.alibaba.com/photo/5007028...Hard_Candy.jpg

adam · #20 10-29-2006, 09:53 AM

Luke's right. His panties are definitely not in a knot, because I know firsthand he goes commando.

I think people can post as informatively or not as they'd like. Seriously, I have no problem with seeing the name of a movie and the comment wow. I've got a google search window a freaking inch away.

If someone wants to make posts like this, they bear the consequences. The consequences are that i make an interpretation on the post based on what I know of the poster. If someone whose taste I respect did a similar post, I'd follow the link. If it's someone who I think is a twat, I won't. If it's someone I don't know, it rather depends on my mood. Simple, innit? No harm, no foul. If someone repeatedly makes posts that everybody thinks are uninteresting, they'll stop replying, and the poster will probably figure out on his own that there's an issue he needs to address if he wants to be an active part of the community.

No hostility towards KoS, I don't want to escalate any bad mood here, but I think you're flat out wrong about people deliberately misinterpreting Stimpee. As a moderator, all his posts carry the weight of his authority, and if he doesn't like that, he doesn't need to be a moderator, or he should make another account for his opinion pieces. He's been throwing a lot of criticism around about people's posting habits, and, with his ability to merge threads and all that, backing up his criticism. He's posted in a thread of mine that he sort of kind of thought it should be deleted just because it was a joke - (True Romance 2) I thought it was a good (well, mediocre, fine) joke though. Granted, he didn't delete the thread.

He also has been openly scornful of people not using the search engine to find threads, and in some of these cases these were older threads by several months. That's a different idea of what dirty should be than I have. He wants a concise source of useful information and opinion; I expect more of an open dialogue type of feel that free posting encourages. Usually, when new threads are started on old topics, if previously interested parties are still kicking about, they link to the old threads anyway. It seems to sort itself out to me without the need of an authoritive hand.

Stimpee, whether he likes it or not, cannot separate his dirty member voice from his dirty moderator voice. Even if he explicitly stated he was presenting his view as a dirty member, in a particular post, I still think it would be questionable whether or not that should be taken at face value. Not saying he's dishonest, but I'm saying the situation makes it more complicated than his stated or chosen intent.