Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Just now, cigarjoe said:

Well? What did Twitter come up with?  Use your imagination, what would you come up with since you seen to be ready to pounce on an answer.

Wow,  Joe,  I don't want to get in an argument about this.   I'm just surprised you favor such a thing,  especially at this forum,  which has zero influence over anyone.

I assume it is already against the TCM code to incite violence,  but if not,  I would favor that change.

Otherwise,   I think it is healthily to let the yoyos speak.    This way we know who they are and what they think.   Having them go-under-ground,  doesn't reduce the odds of them causing potential harm,  but instead increases it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, when I questioned TalkTalk's name and posts, I wasn't questioning the value of this Off-Topic section, which represents a great enhancement and solved the problem of posters (me included) segueing or making political or other unrelated posts in the movie threads, which caused a lot of problems in the old days. And I wasn't saying that TalkTalk's or Highway's posts should be removed. I just don't understand why someone doesn't have the courage of their convictions.

This being a film site, it seems odd that someone would come here solely to post in the Off-Topic section, so I assume that those posters usually post here under one name when they post about film, another when they post about politics. Nothing illegal about that, or against the code (I don't think); it just seems strange to me.

Of course no-one posts here under his/her real name, but we do have names that represent us and give us our identity here. Mine is Swithin. When I post about film, when I post about politics, when I post about anything, profound (hopefully on occasion) or stupid, it's always as Swithin.

So I remain curious as to why posters need to take another name in order to make Off Topic posts. Unless it's the same person using more than one name to give more weight to their arguments.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Otherwise,   I think it is healthily to let the yoyos speak.    This way we know who they are and what they think.   Having them go-under-ground,  doesn't reduce the odds of them causing potential harm,  but instead increases it.

This is the problem, It is healthy to let the yoyos speak but its not healthy to let them do so under anonymity. If ya want to be a yoyo I want to know who you are, I want your neighbors to know who you are.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

This is the problem, It is healthy to let the yoyos speak but its not healthy to let them do so under anonymity. If ya want to be a yoyo I want to know who you are, I want your neighbors to know who you are.   

Thanks for explaining that because it is an angle I didn't think of:  at least on Facebook, Twitter,  etc...  one has to post using their actual identity (I assume since I have never used these services).         Here one can hide behind a username and avatar.

Because I'm not really the ghost of James Cagney,   in case anyone wondered! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Thanks for explaining that because it is an angle I didn't think of:  at least on Facebook, Twitter,  etc...  one has to post using their actual identity (I assume since I have never used these services).         Here one can hide behind a username and avatar.

Because I'm not really the ghost of James Cagney,   in case anyone wondered! 

Yea I obviously figured that,  but that's really me in the avatar on the left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Thanks for explaining that because it is an angle I didn't think of:  at least on Facebook, Twitter,  etc...  one has to post using their actual identity (I assume since I have never used these services).         Here one can hide behind a username and avatar.

Because I'm not really the ghost of James Cagney,   in case anyone wondered! 

One can hide behind a username and avatar, but what puzzles me is why some of us should feel obliged to hide behind more than one username and avatar!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Thanks for explaining that because it is an angle I didn't think of:  at least on Facebook, Twitter,  etc...  one has to post using their actual identity (I assume since I have never used these services).         Here one can hide behind a username and avatar.

Because I'm not really the ghost of James Cagney,   in case anyone wondered! 

Twitter doesn't enforce any sort of identity check or the use of names.  That's why there's so many parody Twitter accounts.

Edit:  They do, however, offer a verified user service, so that you can tell that it's the real person you're following or Tweeting.  That's what the blue check means next to their Twitter handle.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Yea I obviously figured that,  but that's really me in the avatar on the left.

You would make a great guest host with Eddie Muller.    You have the look,  and the hat!

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

TCM has a code they follow, as you know having one of your threads removed the other day. I personally know that TMC can misunderstand or misjudge a situation on this site but still make a ruling to protect their interest. The first time I was banned was movie related and that's why after 12 years I don't post in the movie section, and I had to change my name for that reason. every time I've been banned I change my name, I'm up to four names now.

Interesting. I assume that you were banned in the time before the Off-Topic threads existed?  A serial offender? How many times were you banned? Can you tell us some of your names?  Have you had counseling?  

I have a sort of meta-interest in the history of the TCM Board.

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

Did this ring a bell, it should have Swithin ?

Under free speech you can shout fire in a crowded theater, but not "falsely" shout fire in a crowded theater, you will have to face the legal consequences because it has been through the Supreme court with constitutional interpretation, and it has been ruled illegal.
 
The 4 times I was banned on TCM not once did I receive a warning. The last time was 5 years ago when I was posting Hillary Clinton's paid speeches "who was paying her and the amount of money" , I was posting about 10 of them at a time and then another 10 and on and on, so for what reason I was banned and my posting about Hilary's paid speeches were removed, I don't know, it may have looked like I was trying to control the thread I was posting on, or it may have looked like I was posting the same thing over and over, who knows.  Also I did not need to post the way I did but I thought it would make the point more dramatic then if I just posted a link to the article itself. 

Well this is a private site, and anyone can be banned. I think the creation of the Off-Topic area was a great move, to take some of the stuff out of the movie threads. You might have been banned after a succession of posts, not just on one subject. And maybe not so much on the content of the politics, but on the manner of expression.

I don't know who you were when you were banned before, but if you were one of the aliases that I think you were, you once said something so vile in response to another poster, that I couldn't believe you weren't banned sooner. It wasn't even political, it was a disgusting attack on another poster.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HIGHWAY said:

 The news is suppose to be impartial, that does not exist in the partisan tilted monopolized news in America today; and not through the cable commentary news organizations like CNN, FOX, MSNBC; the facts are manipulated and tilted to serve a partisan bias. Both the left and right are complicit, as this video and article show.  

 

 
The Telecommunications Act of 1996

“Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few,” said Eduardo Galeano, the Latin American journalist, in response to the act.

Twenty years later the devastating impact of the legislation is undeniable: About 90 percent of the country’s major media companies are owned by six corporations. Bill Clinton’s legacy in empowering the consolidation of corporate media.

To me there are two points here;    The first one is News was never impartial.   That is impossible since humans can't be impartial.   When most of the news was from newspapers these papers weren't impartial.    But back-in-the-day ,  the news section was the news-section and opinion was left to the editorial section.    Today editorial (called commentary),  are on the front page,  and all through the so-called-news section.    (with some papers not even labeling such articles as "commentary").    

The second point:   There were multiple newspapers, even in mid-size US cities,  and thus multiple POVs.    With all of the consolidation (as noted),   one's options are very limited.    This is why I watch a lot foreign news stations like France 24,  the BBC,   NHK,  and read publications like The Economist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh hell! DON'T overthink this thing here, people!

This kind'a thing STILL all boils down to that line that's in that old Marvin Gaye "Heard It Through The Grapevine" song. THIS line:

"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear."

Or put another way:  It's YOUR damn responsibilty to always have a healthy sense of suspicion about ANY bit of "news" that's fed to you.

(...okay, and NOW if you guys want, you can go back to blaming "the media" for all the damn problems in this country)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, HIGHWAY said:
No Dargo it's not "ALL" to all the damn problems in the country, but it's "complicity", lets say you don't have reporters embedded with troops, or you don't have first hand reporting from, lets say inside Syria as examples, but you use the security state talking points as your source for news, and not to have shame for doing this but you hire the very top people in the security state to support that view. And don't forget your advertiser's are pro military, big Pharma and insurance corporations to name a few, so your not going to go against your money cow.
 
You have to manufacture consent for war, you can ignore whistle blowers or permit journalist like Assange to go under the US prosecution because you don't want to upset your sponsors, nor upset your journalistic Washington privileges.

 

So, then sort'a like the situation where the news media was used by Dubya to whip up a war frenzy back in 2003? And how, by use of MY aformentioned "healthy sense of suspicion" back then, I was able to see right through that whole sales job and voice MY objections to it to anyone and everyone within MY circle of friends and associates?

Okay sure, back then it DID seem that I WAS in the minority of people who were able to see through those facades of lies and deceits which were feed to us, but THAT is my point here! The idea that it's our OWN personal resposibility TO develop within each and every one of us this ability to question EVERY damn piece of information given to us with a skeptic's eyes and ears, and so as to NOT blindly follow some leader's course of action.

(...so, should I just chalk this all up to my being smarter than the average joe?)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...