Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
johnm001

Cinemascope's Sociopathic Spamming Thread

Recommended Posts

Is that a threat? Sounds like one. I have to believe you're not for real. If you are, then I suspect you're a spammer; because your obsession makes no sense. I also noticed that you keep pushing threads to the top, when there are no new posts in them. I've gone to a few of them multiple times, and there's no new posts. That's what a spammer does. It's most unpleasant. If your intent is not spamming, then why do you keep doing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan:

 

This poster loves to cause trouble, and loves to have her name at the top of as many threads as he/she can manage. My point is proven by the name of the thread and his/her comment: "Just avoid the subject of JA and you'll find me just as welcoming as ever!"

 

Why would anyone avoid the subject of Julie Andrews on a thread named "Julie Andrews and All Broadway Musicals" Seems sort of 'misogynistic' doesn't it? I would advise you to click on the 'first post', then just enjoy the photos of Miss Andrews and when you get to the first posts by this poster, just go to another thread, otherwise you'll find yourself getting caught up in his/her web of hatred.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anne, whether or not someone's name appears near the thread or not is entirely of no concern to me.

 

As for Brendan, I welcomed him warmly to the forums and I still feel that way. To express disagreement with an idea or over a certain subject does not in itself constitute any kind of hostility towards him. There is no reason for him to interpret it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Anne. I have read through the posts. Great photos and music. I just find it sick for someone to spam the thread. I don't understand it. They keep implying that they are being forced to endure the photos and such. Who's forcing them??? I'm most likely not going to hang around. That sort of spamming is just annoying, and very unfortunate. Their IP address should be blocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan,

 

I don't believe anyone here is spamming anything. The OP encouraged us to discuss as many Broadway musicals as we wanted to.

 

So, tell me, you've never actually heard about "Barnum"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Brendan:

>

> This poster loves to cause trouble, and loves to have

> her name at the top of as many threads as he/she can

> manage. My point is proven by the name of the thread

> and his/her comment: "Just avoid the subject of

> JA and you'll find me just as welcoming as ever!"

>

>

> Why would anyone avoid the subject of Julie Andrews

> on a thread named "Julie Andrews and All Broadway

> Musicals" Seems sort of 'misogynistic'

> doesn't it? I would advise you to click on the

> 'first post', then just enjoy the photos of

> Miss Andrews and when you get to the first posts by

> this poster, just go to another thread, otherwise

> you'll find yourself getting caught up in his/her web

> of hatred.

>

> Anne

 

 

For the record, TCM WebAdmin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of LAW, here's some interesting trivia I found on her:

 

Youngest actor ever to have attended NY's Actors Studio, when she was 17.

 

Was student at School of American Ballet when she switched to acting.

 

Lives in LA with companion Ron Taft, ad executive.

 

Auditioned for the role of Liesl in The Sound of Music (1965).

 

Tried out for the role of Lois Lane in Superman (1978), but lost to Margot Kidder.

 

Is a vegetarian.

 

She has a son, Christopher Peters, from producer Jon Peters.

 

Her father was a World War II vet and realtor while her mother was a nightclub singer who stopped working when Lesley Ann was born.

 

At age 13, she won a scholarship to study with ballet legend George Balanchine.

 

She once enrolled in an acting class with drama coach Stella Adler.

 

Warren says she won the highly-coveted part of Susan's high-maintenance mom Sophie on "Desperate Housewives" (2004) because of her son Christopher.

 

Was supposed to play the role of Brenda in Goodbye, Columbus (1969), but she got pregnant and had to be replaced. Ali MacGraw then got the part.

 

Was very proud of her work in Willing to Kill: The Texas Cheerleader Story (1992) (TV), and was disappointed that it got clobbered by an HBO movie on the same story (The Positively True Adventures of the Alleged Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom (1993) (TV)) that came out at about the same time, starring Holly Hunter.

 

Started working on her first Broadway show (110 in the Shade) at sixteen and a half years old.

 

When she first auditioned for Cinderella, she was so nervous that the audition tanked. She had to audition a second time, and then was hired.

 

Of all her television experiences, Warren said she had an especially great time on "Will & Grace" (1998) and "Dr. Kildare" (1961), and that her favorite television experience was the making of Cinderella (1965) (TV).

 

Says her favorite genre is the Musical.

 

Starred in an early 1970s busted TV pilot as "Cat Ballou," the role Jane Fonda made famous on film.

 

Walt Disney hand-picked Lesley for the ing?nue role in the film The Happiest Millionaire (1967) after her "Cinderella" success. This film was the last live-action movie Disney supervised before his death.

 

Was extremely upset at first about her performance as the gangster's moll in Victor/Victoria (1982) prior to its release, having thought she went horribly over the top. She did go over the top and the audiences loved her for it. Lesley was nominated for a "Supporting Actress" Academy Award, her only nod so far.

 

Lesley was to co-star in the beautician comedy series "Snip" (1976), a TV takeoff of the Warren Beatty movie "Shampoo" starring David Brenner as a divorced hairdresser. Just before its scheduled September 30, 1976, debut, NBC abruptly canceled the show, so fast in fact that TV Guide did not even have time to remove a special feature on the show in its Fall Preview of September 18-24, 1976. Why? One of the show's supporting characters, a fellow hairdresser named Michael, was openly gay and NBC got cold feet at the last minute. Had "Snip" (1976) premiered, it would have been a first on American series TV. Instead, Billy Crystal went on to receive that honor with his gay character a year later on the popular series "Soap" (1977). Seven episodes of "Snip" (1976) were completed when it got the ax. The only place the series ended up airing was in Australia, and it became the highest rated show in Australian history up until that time.

 

Played Lois Lane in a television production of the musical It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman (1975) (TV), and later screen tested for the role in Superman (1978).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crazy copy and paste posts are beinning again. Funny how she ruined this thread, then once it was turned over to her she stopped posting. Oh yeah, that's right, I stopped posting here, so her PLAY MISTY FOR ME, FATAL ATTRACTION obsession with me, just moved to the thread that I went to. Talk about obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a quick question about the 1957 tv production of 'cinderella'....i was surprised how julie and the cast did not belt out the songs in the way of most r&h productions, i wonder if that was because it was broadcast live? i too am used to the law '65 version and still like the fairy tale quality of that production (and the strong vocals), but knowing julie's powerful singing voice (ex: has anyone hit a note like she does on that hilltop in "tsom") i was expecting her to put her songs for 'cinderella' through the roof!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But certainly you must realize that in the middle of the week you had around 4,800 posts; now it's nearly 5,600. That's 800 posts in less than a week; I joined three weeks before you did and have not quite 600 yet.

 

As I posted in another place last week, most of us expect nothing back to our posts unless there is new information or somebody has a good source for posting a correction. No "Thank you"s or "That's nice" or "GTH***"s - nothing. These aren't phone conversations we're having. E-mail and its IMs are for that; or PMs through here, or whatever. Some threads that had 3 or 4 pages of interesting material have suddenly acquired 10 or more pages in the past couple of weeks with little of substance added.

 

I mean that in the nicest way I can, since it really does make it difficult to find where somebody asked something and where the answer is, with so much stuff in between on some threads. Also, people have always stepped in with other questions while waiting for someone to respond to earlier posts. That's no problem when it all winds up on the same page. Going back 2-3 pages to hunt for what the "thread" really was before it got broken is maddening. Nearly 1,000 posts in a week; my mind (truly) boggles.......

 

This is the last time I'll say anything about it here on the threads, but I'll wind up being one more who just goes away for a few weeks (or longer if need be) if things don't soon change. It will have been nice knowing so many of you, but I do have a house and a record and tape collection that can use my tending them!

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

julie and the cast did not belt out the songs in the way of most r&h productions, i wonder if that was because it was broadcast live?

 

Well, yes; don't know whether "live" mattered, but it was certainly done in a TV studio and not a huge theater. If you saw the PBS version a year or so ago with Kay Ballard and others interviewed (and I guess those things are on the DVD), there was a lot of talk about the "live" aspects and the problems that meant.

 

Also, with Rodgers and Hammerstein right there, I'm sure the style is EXACTLY what they wanted - or the broadcast wouldn't have happened!

 

If you have the LP or CD of JA's version, that was recorded (in early stereo) at the dress rehearsal. It's "almost" a soundtrack, but not quite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I don't really pay much attention to numbers and I don't really see why you or I should. The numbers are meaningless, and in many instances I would consider it downright rude to not even offer a brief "thank you" or some sort of acknowledgement that something has been read. I'm not even the only person on the boards who does it! And certainly nobody who has ever posted a short "thank you" or some other brief message has broken any forum rules. When you post in here, you have to be aware that there aren't any specific rules in regards to these kind of things. When we participate on these boards, we are all doing so under the same rules, and by participating we implicitly agree to them. There are many people who are quick to complaint about technical issues and other stuff that's not to their liking on these boards... Well, these days it isn't very hard to get a new bulletin board started, you can even do it for free and you can make it password-protected so that nobody can post without your consent. I continue to remain interested in the TCM bb primarily because of my interest in movies, and consider it most unfortunate that people such as johnm_001 and other posters have resorted to foul and filthy language out of their personal dislike and/or personal animosity towards others.

 

Yet I don't see you saying anything to johnm_001 about his use of degrading language towards women when posting on these boards. Either you don't think much of it or you implicitly are approving of such filthy language by him... that's the only explanation I can think of, at any rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sociopathic Cinemacope wrote: Bill, I don't really pay much attention to numbers and I don't really see why you or I should. The numbers are meaningless, and in many instances I would consider it downright rude to not even offer a brief "thank you" or some sort of acknowledgement that something has been read. I'm not even the only person on the boards who does it! And certainly nobody who has ever posted a short "thank you" or some other brief message has broken any forum rules. When you post in here, you have to be aware that there aren't any specific rules in regards to these kind of things. When we participate on these boards, we are all doing so under the same rules, and by participating we implicitly agree to them. There are many people who are quick to complaint about technical issues and other stuff that's not to their liking on these boards... Well, these days it isn't very hard to get a new bulletin board started, you can even do it for free and you can make it password-protected so that nobody can post without your consent. I continue to remain interested in the TCM bb primarily because of my interest in movies, and consider it most unfortunate that people such as johnm_001 and other posters have resorted to foul and filthy language out of their personal dislike and/or personal animosity towards others.

 

Yet I don't see you saying anything to johnm_001 about his use of degrading language towards women when posting on these boards. Either you don't think much of it or you implicitly are approving of such filthy language by him... that's the only explanation I can think of, at any rate.

 

 

Excellent example of sociopathic behavior, above. Finally, the perfect post for this renamed thread. You should all be very afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> But certainly you must realize that in the middle of

> the week you had around 4,800 posts; now it's nearly

> 5,600. That's 800 posts in less than a week; I

> joined three weeks before you did and have not quite

> 600 yet.

 

That's downright sick and bizarre. There's no way she could have any kind of life. We should all be leery of her....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnm_001:

 

I, for one, would appreciate it if you would change the title of this thread back to its' original of Julie Andrews and other Broadway. The present title is a little too questionable on a Musical Topic.

 

Cinemascope (CS) right now has two strong supporters (Bronxgirl and malkat), at one time she also had SueSueApplegate, until SueSue sad something CS disliked, then became her target, just as all the rest of us have become, and as Bronx and malkat will eventually. If you go back 29 pages to the original post, you will find when it started CS liked Julie Andrews and posted "nice photos!" in reply to some John had posted. Later they made her want to 'puke'.

 

Weeks ago John did use some vile language, but has not since, yet CS cannot help but repeat the occasion over and over to anyone who will listen, including TCM administration.

 

As for the number of posts, no, nobody is restricted to how many times one may post, however, if a post is followed by a lengthy song lyric, or critics review, as Bill said, trying to reply to a question is difficult when having to search for the original question through pages and pages of unimportant lyrics, or reviews. A URL would suffice for those who wish to read it. Additionally an occasional 'Atta-Boy' post is nice but not constantly following every post one person makes. It disrupts the flow of thought. Most people here, post with an Original idea, question, explanation, or request for comments on their post. This is an 'everyman' type of message board, not a classroom where facts and figures are uppermost intel. Give us something concrete to latch onto so someone else may enter the conversation.

 

Stalking on the message boards is just as unnerving as it is in person. To have every single post followed by the same person time after time, can cause irritation, and lead to hard feelings and arguments.

 

Finally, CS apparently feels sexually harassed. I have seen no evidence of this. A phrase was used in connection with her, but was explained by more than two people who up to that point had been innocent bystanders, yet the explanation was not enough, she continues to claim it. To complain about an actress because of the way she portrays a role is not a form of sexual harassment, just an opinion. A man can say Debbie Reynolds was a tomboy, but that doesn't mean he thinks all women are tomboys.

 

John, since you are the only one who can, please return to the original title. I, and others would like to get back to discussing musicals, Julie, and movies made from Broadway hits.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against SueSue, and I can't for the life of me recall a single thing that she said that would have made me upset in any way whatsoever. The only thing I can recall is that when I mentioned the two versions of Oklahoma! neither her nor you simply asked me to explain what they were. Since no explanation was requested, I assumed it wasn't wanted. But you're probably right in that perhaps I could have offered it... I don't think there's any reason for hard feelings over something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI:

 

Another thread was locked over in the technical issues forum. One that seems to follow the same topic that this one has become. Everybody might want to consider their postings.

 

Julie Andrews where are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

movieman1957:

 

I, personally adore Julie Andrews and all of her music as well as her movies, both musical and otherwise. I was very unhappy when this thread bearing her name was turned into a war zone. I have twice tried to get back on track, but it keeps getting sidetracked.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying this from observation, but Cinemascope don't you think might be annoying to some people. It's not just one person that's complaining about you, but it's many. Something must be wrong??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "war zone" observation of yours merely reflects that some people cannot handle a simple disagreement. Not only that, but they will reitaliate with vulgar and filthy language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the more serious issue is (like I said in the previous post) that some posters simply can't handle a mere disagreement without turning it into a personal issue, full of vicious attacks and (in some cases) foul and filthy language. Some of them would like to exercise control over others, apparently.

 

I'm against that kind of bullying, and in favor of people being able to express their honest opinions without fear of retaliation, with or without the foul and filthy language that some posters have used (mostly against me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See new thread on subject of Broadway and musicals.

 

Message was edited by:

mrsl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...