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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sagebrush said:

I love the individual obituaries which posters contribute to this forum and all the wonderful comments other posters add to them. I also like the Obituary thread, however. Not everyone gets their own personal thread on these forums, and  so I see it as kind of like reading the weekly obituaries in the Sunday paper. I would have missed many of these announcements otherwise.  Also, if you'll pardon a bit of Gallows Humor, the thread is never far off the front page of the general discussions section.

In any format, it's good that the actors we love are honoured, whether on their birthdays or when they leave us.  But when they get the individual thread, we can go back to it later on, whereas if they're in the catch-all thread, that would be awkward.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My mention of several individual deaths have in every instance resulted in immediate posts that there is an obituary thread for this sort of stuff and why oh why am I being a f*****g idiot for upsetting the system? . It has crushed my soul and prevented me from making any more posts. People don't seem to be as hard toward other posters as they are me. Perhaps I bring it on myself. I am happy that others who recognize individual deaths that might be worthy of notice aren't receiving the hostility I did.  Cotinue ... if you are not crushed by the system! 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Swithin said:

Such a blanket thread would be like the obituary thread, which I think is disrespectful to the dearly departed. 

Plus, in my opinion; it would in theory eventually get all tangled and knotted up like two girraffes playing twister with the (eventual) morphing and combining of one birthday into "POOF!", Another.

 

     I Compose and "Script" in a Consternating Enough Manner the way it is. No Need to Neccesarily Exacerbate That.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Just mention whose birthday it is in the title.  What's so difficult about that?   Then you could have avoided all this brou-ha. But then, if some actress or actor starred as some ICONIC movie character( as CLINT EASTWOOD as DIRTY HARRY)  we all might know who you then mean .  Or say, if you wish to extend posthumous birthday greetings to a particular actor by titling  the thread "Hud", then we all might think the thread is either about the movie, or at least about Paul Newman.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Hmm. Well, im Not Disagreeing Upon That. Lets Say Hypothetically we briefly press upon the "Freaky Button" for the sake of Polite Arguement. Roles Are Reversed, and Some One Else Posts say, "Sylvester". I Would Immediately Turn it into a Kinda Mystry Password-esque Game Tryin' to Figure Out Who "the Heck" They Are Talking About. (That, And Or Figure Out: OK, So.. its (Hypothetically) Dick Shawn's Birthday.  Now What Role, "Had Him" As That Character (?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Swithin said:

In any format, it's good that the actors we love are honoured, whether on their birthdays or when they leave us.  But when they get the individual thread, we can go back to it later on, whereas if they're in the catch-all thread, that would be awkward.

No Disrespect, Nor Middle Finger to ANY One Here. With That Said, Thank You.

 

      While Certainly No Guarantee Whatsoever. It Might do Nothing But Further Exacerbate the Possibility of Such An All-Encompassing Post Turning Into Two Giraffes (Attempting At) Playing Twister. Or Two Full Grown Hippoes Sharing a Slip N Slide. lol

 

   (Acutely Visualizating the First Fantasia)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

My mention of several individual deaths have in every instance resulted in immediate posts that there is an obituary thread for this sort of stuff and why oh why am I being a f*****g idiot for upsetting the system? . It has crushed my soul and prevented me from making any more posts. People don't seem to be as hard toward other posters as they are me. Perhaps I bring it on myself. I am happy that others who recognize individual deaths that might be worthy of notice aren't receiving the hostility I did.  Cotinue ... if you are not crushed by the system! 

Honestly. No 🐦 Toward ASingle (Other) User Here when saying: Thank You. That (Apologies) Sucks. Your Voice Is Heard.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Swithin said:

I actually like these threads. They start out as birthday threads but morph into discussions of the actors' work.  And the thread title adds a bit of mystery as to the content...

And THEN you said...

6 hours ago, Swithin said:

Such a blanket thread would be like the obituary thread, which I think is disrespectful to the dearly departed. 

So then, it kind'a sounds here Swithin that IF Ari here had started that "Death Takes No Holiday" thread instead of Richard Kimble (btw, whatever happened to that guy anyway?...our fellow forum member, NOT the character David Janssen played on TV...but I digress) and had instead titled it somethin' like say, "Guess Who Just Croaked?", you might like that thread a little MORE???   

LOL

(...well, you DID say up there that you like "mystery", now didn't YOU?!...make up your mind here, dude!)  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dargo said:

And THEN you said...

So then, it kind'a sounds here Swithin that IF Ari here had started that "Death Takes No Holiday" thread instead of Richard Kimble (btw, whatever happened to that guy anyway?...our fellow forum member, NOT the character David Janssen played on TV...but I digress) and had instead titled it somethin' like say, "Guess Who Just Croaked?", you might like that thread a little MORE???   

LOL

(...well, you DID say up there that you like "mystery", now didn't YOU?!...make up your mind here, dude!)  ;)

 If you look back, you can see that I never liked the obit thread, I think it's disrespectful. But that's just me.

If Ari has a unique way of celebrating the birthdays he cares about, we don't have to extrapolate that to the celebration of all birthdays, or the way other posters want to celebrate the birthdays that are important to them. This demand for conformity is surprising in a thread with (at least a fair amount) of open minded, intelligent posters.

 

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

 If you look back, you can see that I never liked the obit thread, I think it's disrespectful. But that's just me.

If Ari has a unique way of celebrating the birthdays he cares about, we don't have to extrapolate that to the celebration of all birthdays, or the way other posters want to celebrate the birthdays that are important to them. This demand for conformity is surprising in a thread with (at least a fair amount) of open minded, intelligent posters.

I think this may be your own issue(s) about conformity. Most people are not wanting the threads grouped together because of conformity, but because it would be easier to find discussions related to birthdays.

Most of the birthday threads that the OP creates get very few likes or even views, probably because most people know it's just a random little shout-out with no real consequence or meaning.

What I found disrespectful is that the OP does not research if there is a thread about said person already in existence. We have a wonderful thread already created about Roddy McDowall, where a lot of people chimed in and shared their observations about this unique actor. The thread was still quite active just a few months ago and would be easy to find and just add on the birthday wish.

But the OP does not do a search to see if he/she is making a duplicate thread which seems a bit self-absorbed to me, that he/she is just trying to get attention by what they're posting and not what others may have posted on the subject already. Again I am not saying this because of any need for conformity, but so there is respect and contribution on an existing thread that already has a meaningful discussion occurring.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

Perhaps Much to Many Peoples Consternation and Chagrin.. lol.

🎢

I am sure you're a nice person, and you clearly have a love for classic film stars.

But this comment indicates to me that you are putting your own idiosyncrasies ahead of having a meaningful conversation with others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I am sure you're a nice person, and you clearly have a love for classic film stars.

But this comment indicates to me that you are putting your own idiosyncrasies ahead of having a meaningful conversation with others. 

Im Sorry it Seems That Way And This Is A Very Unfortunate Perspective but Not At All. I Dont Type And Compose the way i do for tabloid shock value. 

 

 

     Im Not in the least going to proceed into .. more Specific Comparisons when i say You And Your Thoughts, Ideas, and Opinions are (Easily) One of the Best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I think this may be your own issue(s) about conformity. Most people are not wanting the threads grouped together because of conformity, but because it would be easier to find discussions related to birthdays.

Most of the birthday threads that the OP creates get very few likes or even views, probably because most people know it's just a random little shout-out with no real consequence or meaning.

What I found disrespectful is that the OP does not research if there is a thread about said person already in existence. We have a wonderful thread already created about Roddy McDowall, where a lot of people chimed in and shared their observations about this unique actor. The thread was still quite active just a few months ago and would be easy to find and just add on the birthday wish.

But the OP does not do a search to see if he/she is making a duplicate thread which seems a bit self-absorbed to me, that he/she is just trying to get attention by what they're posting and not what others may have posted on the subject already. Again I am not saying this because of any need for conformity, but so there is respect and contribution on an existing thread that already has a meaningful discussion occurring.

The Roddy McDowall thread is a good example, thanks, What Ari does is to take that idea a step further, titling the thread by the name of a character, which I find makes it more challenging and interesting (which is good, as far as I'm concerned).  

In fact, there were older threads related to Roddy McDowall. In fact, there has been a thread, in some fashion, about almost everyone, and it doesn't seem to stop the creation of new ones related to a given subject. I don't think that's a big deal. I think there is something about this particular sort of thread that upsets people. But it has occasioned a spirited conversation!

What I would like to see, since we're all talking about process here, is a limit to the number of threads any given poster can start in any given time period.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

While Certainly No Guarantee Whatsoever. It Might do Nothing But Further Exacerbate the Possibility of Such An All-Encompassing Post Turning Into Two Giraffes (Attempting At) Playing Twister. Or Two Full Grown Hippoes Sharing a Slip N Slide. lol

Be careful, capitalization is now considered oppression.

https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18138

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

The Roddy McDowall thread is a good example, thanks, What Ari does is to take that idea a step further, titling the thread by the name of a character, which I find makes it more challenging and interesting (which is good, as far as I'm concerned).  

In fact, there were older threads related to Roddy McDowall. In fact, there has been a thread, in some fashion, about almost everyone, and it doesn't seem to stop the creation of new ones related to a given subject. I don't think that's a big deal. I think there is something about this particular sort of thread that upsets people. But it has occasioned a spirited conversation!

What I would like to see, since we're all talking about process here, is a limit to the number of threads any given poster can start in any given time period.

Well if you will notice I said the previous Roddy McDowall thread was active just a short time ago. Obviously it's a bit much to expect others to find threads from five or ten years ago (though that is possible with the search feature). But in this case it was a recent discussion and probably could be found just a few pages back.

I do not think the OP is interested in adding to other people's threads. He/she is more interested in making new threads and showing off his/her own posting style.

One thing I do on General Discussions is I run a search of all the threads I started, to see if a new idea or thought process can be tacked on to something I already created. If not, that is when I begin a new thread topic. But even then, I try to see if there are other threads in last five pages or so, created by someone else, where I can add my thoughts. I don't just make new threads at the drop of a proverbial hat.

At one point I had created a thread called Today's Topic, which was meant to be a more generalized thread for all sorts of different ideas related to classic film. The goal was it would cut down on my making too many threads. But eventually the Today's Topic thread became unwieldy and I just decided to go back to making new threads about new topics, but not at an alarming rate.

Again this is not about conformity per se or about dictating to others how and when to make threads. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone be more purposeful and less random in the proliferation of threads on the General Discussions board. My opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Well if you will notice I said the previous Roddy McDowall thread was active just a short time ago. Obviously it's a bit much to expect others to find threads from five or ten years ago (though that is possible with the search feature). But in this case it was a recent discussion and probably could be found just a few pages back.

I do not think the OP is interested in adding to other people's threads. He/she is more interested in making new threads and showing off his/her own posting style.

One thing I do on General Discussions is I run a search of all the threads I started, to see if a new idea or thought process can be tacked on to something I already created. If not, that is when I begin a new thread topic. But even then, I try to see if there are other threads in last five pages or so, created by someone else, where I can add my thoughts. I don't just make new threads at the drop of a proverbial hat.

At one point I had created a thread called Today's Topic, which was meant to be a more generalized thread for all sorts of different ideas related to classic film. The goal was it would cut down on my making too many threads. But eventually the Today's Topic thread became unwieldy and I just decided to go back to making new threads about new topics, but not at an alarming rate.

Again this is not about conformity per se or about dictating to others how and when to make threads. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone be more purposeful and less random in the proliferation of threads on the General Discussions board. My opinion.

   With Respect to Your Second Paragraph in particular Sir/Madam, it is Unfortunate That That Is Your Active Opinion. Or at least that seems to be. I Dont want to assume. And i Hope i am wrong in my perception.

 Am Not Meaning to be a Condescending Little Rude Imbecel in Saying Any of this. 

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

   With Respect to Your Second Paragraph Sir/Madam, it is Unfortunate That That Is Your Active Opinion.        Not At All. 

And im Not Meaning to be a Condescending Little Rude Imbecel in Saying Any of this either. 

Thanks for the reply/feedback.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Well if you will notice I said the previous Roddy McDowall thread was active just a short time ago. Obviously it's a bit much to expect others to find threads from five or ten years ago (though that is possible with the search feature). But in this case it was a recent discussion and probably could be found just a few pages back.

I do not think the OP is interested in adding to other people's threads. He/she is more interested in making new threads and showing off his/her own posting style.

One thing I do on General Discussions is I run a search of all the threads I started, to see if a new idea or thought process can be tacked on to something I already created. If not, that is when I begin a new thread topic. But even then, I try to see if there are other threads in last five pages or so, created by someone else, where I can add my thoughts. I don't just make new threads at the drop of a proverbial hat.

At one point I had created a thread called Today's Topic, which was meant to be a more generalized thread for all sorts of different ideas related to classic film. The goal was it would cut down on my making too many threads. But eventually the Today's Topic thread became unwieldy and I just decided to go back to making new threads about new topics, but not at an alarming rate.

Again this is not about conformity per se or about dictating to others how and when to make threads. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone be more purposeful and less random in the proliferation of threads on the General Discussions board. My opinion.

Well, as in most things, it's a question of taste. I like Ari's threads, they mark a change in style, which I find refreshing.

Regarding the search you mention, I find that a very useful tool. In the Games threads, I often search to see if what I plan to post has been posted before (even by me!). I was going to post a song in the "First Song..." thread, but in doing a search, I discovered the I posted that a few times before, over the years. Not that I couldn't do it again, if the clue called for it; it's just that one tries to be a little different, particularly when the whole history of film is our oyster!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A poster complained that the thread's title was Ms. Bisset's role in a movie that no one cares about.  No one cares about Bullitt? I think it's a pretty seminal film and might even be called a classic!

GettyImages-607395826.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Swithin said:

Such a blanket thread would be like the obituary thread, which I think is disrespectful to the dearly departed. 

It never occurred to me that there is anything wrong with a blanket obituary thread and am surprised to find that the issue is so shrouded with uncertainty. After all, this is just a message board, not some hallowed hall. Yet, "Death take no Holiday..." in the existing thread might be a little louche.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

Hmm. Well, im Not Disagreeing Upon That. Lets Say Hypothetically we briefly press upon the "Freaky Button" for the sake of Polite Arguement. Roles Are Reversed, and Some One Else Posts say, "Sylvester". I Would Immediately Turn it into a Kinda Mystry Password-esque Game Tryin' to Figure Out Who "the Heck" They Are Talking About. (That, And Or Figure Out: OK, So.. its (Hypothetically) Dick Shawn's Birthday.  Now What Role, "Had Him" As That Character (?).

Ah, but really?  You might know it's Shawn's birthday by just seeing a thread titled  "Sylvester"?  Off the bat I'd suggest most would think it had something to do with Sylvester Stallone.  To further reiterate----

I don't think most(if not practically everyone else) people, in wanting to wish a happy birthday to any still living actor/actress or even to wish posthumous birthday  greetings would do so under the guise of titleing the thread with the name of some character they played in some movie, especially since there's the possibility of them having played several characters with the same name in several movies and several OTHER actors/actresses also playing characters with the same name in other movies .  Matter of fact.....

Ms. Bisset  played a character named Anna in two films in a row....

END OF THE GAME('75)  and THE SUNDAY WOMAN('75)   And in the 1985 TV movie of ANNA  KARENINA.  ;)  So you could have just as easily titled this thread "Anna"!

Sepiatone

  • 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...