Hard Candy

[luke]

Usually if someone whose opinion I might value (pretty much anybody on this board) is speechless ("Wow........") from a movie - I'd be keen to check it out too.

[King of Snake]

Originally Posted by adam

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.

so, if other people (like me) do have problem with it (and "problem" is really even too big a word for it, as I said earlier it was never as big a deal as it was made out to be) we're not allowed to say it? How do you rhyme that with your "people can post as they'd like"
As Stimpee has said, there is such a thing as netiquette. If people start posting in ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, AM I NOT ALLOWED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT??

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.

look if you can take

hey this is not april 1st! i should lock this... but no. more fun to let other people fall for it

as a serious intent to lock the thread "just because it was a joke" than you are misinterpreting. Perhaps not deliberately, but still.
The kind of gives it away if you ask me.
To me it seemed that Lukes comments about "why not make it the BOARD RULES (in bold and in CAPS no less)" were at least deliberately inflammatory. Again, the only person who was mentioning RULES was Luke himself.

btw it's funny how you don't seem to take something like Tom's post in the stickie spoiler thread:

Stickied, and the offending thread has been edited of all spoilers.

I'd be waving a ban stick right now if I could.

at the same "face value" as you seem to be taking Stimpee's posts. Surely the above quote is downright authoritarian! He didn't even use a smilie!!

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.

well this is a matter of opinion. If something has been discussed before then I see no reason not to direct people to the search engine. Again this is common netiquette and on most every other forum if you start asking basic questions without using the search you will get some of the regular people kindly pointing it out to you. And that has nothing to do with restraining open dialogue either and everything to do with keeping the forum reasonably clean and uncluttered with needless double posting.

Originally Posted by Luke
but to have someone (other than a moderator) let another poster he has wasted that persons time and given hints on how next time not to do so - yeah, well that pisses me off.
I mean, is it critical for YOU (or anyone else for that matter) to point it out to anyone you don't like the way they post? I'd never seen it happen before, but if there was some broo-ha-ha kicked up then, I'm sorry I missed the boat. In fact, saying that it's happened before just reinforces my comments here.

first of all, I never said that he had "wasted my time"
second, I would say it was mostly coinscidence rather than a critical situation. Coinscidence that I happened to click on this thread, happened to find only the word "wow" and happened to feel like that was a bit limited. So I made a comment (granted, with a bit of sarcasm, pehaps I should have used a ), then later explained myself in more detail after Janie pointed me to IMDB. It's not like I go trough the forums pointing out what problems I have with people's posts, because on the whole I don't really have a lot of problems with posts here.

[Tom]

Please get back on topic.

[Jason Roth]

Originally Posted by Tom

Please get back on topic.

King of Snake loves New York, and has the t-shirt to prove it.

[King of Snake]

Originally Posted by Jason Roth

King of Snake loves New York, and has the t-shirt to prove it.

I will be a snake on a plane to new york to check it out for real sometime mr Rothausen. (I guess you already have an "I love Amsterdam" t-shirt? )

[grady]

Back on topic:

When Hard Candy was playing at this brew pub cinema I work at these two women were freaked out by the film and spent the last hour or so of the taking turns going back into the film to see what was happening next.

They said it was too intense to sit in, but easier to stand in the back of the auditorium, a pint clutched in their hands, close to the exit when things got too intense for them, or when they needed a refill, which was often.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by grady

Back on topic:

When Hard Candy was playing at this brew pub cinema I work at these two women were freaked out by the film and spent the last hour or so of the taking turns going back into the film to see what was happening next.

They said it was too intense to sit in, but easier to stand in the back of the auditorium, a pint clutched in their hands, close to the exit when things got too intense for them, or when they needed a refill, which was often.

Uhuh. Thought so.

Think I will watch this from the safety of my sofa in that case.

[adam]

You're largely right, KoS, but I think you're missing my point in certain respects. 1) Yes, apparently I misinterpreted Stimpee's post about locking the thread. That just indicates that his meaning isn't as clear as he thinks, which was a point I was trying to make. Also, even if he's %100 joking, for the joke to make any sense, it's implied that he thinks joke/nonsense threads merit locking. Not a big deal, my misinterpretation, but I think it illustrates that he has to be cautious about his moderation/non-moderation posting. Especially since he is establishing a pattern of criticizing people's posting habits sincerely.

2) You're right about the caps. I would fully endorse giving people shit about that. There are plenty of other posts, too, that I'd like to give people shit about, too, so I definitely think some criticism is warranted. I guess I thought your tone was harsher than the infringement warranted, but, again, granted, I may have totally misread your tone.

3) I interpret Tom's posts differently, true. That's because I know Tom a fair bit better, and am better able to interpret his tone.

Sorry for all the fuss...I didn't mean to bend everybody out of shape.

You're all a bunch of cunts.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Everyone here with any sense will gladly take that as a compliment.

CUNTS UNITE! (and nevermind the bollocks)

[luke]

We're all cunts. Which is good. Adam is the biggest one ever - perhaps that's why I love him so.

p.s. if people start using more I'll shoot them for being like the mongoose. that in itself is a criminal offence.