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

Your Thoughts About Forum Flamewars


Guest TCMWebAdmin

Recommended Posts

Sometimes I take myself too seriously and forget to post something that involves levity but presently I have nothing to add about bullies and trolls that hasn't already been beaten into sugar cane.

I must remember to stay on the stated mission. I must remember....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what we need on a Saturday night... Enough to ruin anybody's sense of humour.

 

Anyway, guess FredCDobbs interviewed the alleged failed assassination target of Oswald's, Major General Edwin Walker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker

back in the day... Oswald allegedly barely missed, injuring Walker but not killing him.

IMHO, you can remove the word "alleged" from the above for my POV.

Maybe you should ask Dobbs what he thinks? If he has any opinion about it...

 

Anyway, I think a discussion of the assassination would be a better fit when discussing "The Manchurian Candidate." But that's just my opinion.

 

And no point being nasty towards Miss Wonderly...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}

> Well, if that isn't a dismissive post, I don't know what is. Polite, but dismissive.

>

> I just want to address your above remarks with the following caveat: although we are clearly very different in our interests and comment-style on these boards, I've always respected your "voice" here.

> But I am surprised and yes, offended ( and it takes a lot to offend me) that the post I took some time to write, carefully explaining the thought behind posting the Seinfeld/"****" episode, was more or less disregarded by you with a "hey, don't bother explaining it all to me. I know what I read.." type of attitude.

> Kind of felt like when the teacher ( or parent) goes "I don't care who did it, I just want it fixed."

>

>

>

 

I don't know why you are explaining yourself, Miss Wonderly. All that stuff was in that other thread.

 

I remember that I thought that entire thread was bizarre too and I think I remember excusing myself after dropping in... That's ancient history now.

This is the sort of thing that needs to get addressed through PM.

If the other user doesn't agree or get your point, who cares?

 

Anyway, I hope this helps...

 

Edited by: RMeingast on Sep 15, 2012 8:10 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this problem of "bullies" or nasty posts or forum flamewars will never end here.

 

It is very sad that people can't just do like the old saying goes, "If you don't have anything nice to say or write then don't say or write anything".

 

The problem is that we all get caught up in this "mess" and fall into the trap of being "nasty" ourselves in the reply.

 

I personally have had enough, and sometime after this next week, I plan to pull away a lot from these boards. I know it won't be of any big loss to the boards. I plan to post only when I feel I absolutely need to.

 

A "nasty" and I would say uncalled for comment just occurred on a recently started thread. See if you can figure out which one it is.

 

Lori

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lori wrote:

A "nasty" and I would say uncalled for comment just occurred on a recently started thread. See if you can figure out which one it is.

 

ROFL

 

Sorry Lori, but I'm "Rolling On Floor Laughing" here because it's just took me all of 2 minutes to find the thread you were talkin' about here!

 

Yep, knowing as we do about your love of a certain actor, all I had to do was find the name "John Garfield" in that new thread which the newbie "dennisnoir" posted as his very first one here at TCM.com and then read where FredCDobbs jumped all over you about your posting in it, which yes, I felt was uncalled for by him.

 

Ya see, I guess ol' Fred sometimes forgets that newbies at websites are usually unfamilar with "the lay of the land" when they first sign up, huh! ;)

 

But ya have to remember Fred IS gettin' up there in age, and so he can be a mite cranky sometimes, ya know. And so I say it's probably best to give ol' Fred a pass THIS time, and let bygones be bygones!

 

ROFL...again

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was once far less moderation (and hence civility) around here years ago! Some used to express their frustration at the level of abuse and leave the boards. Things have evolved despite how it may appear at times and I credit Time/Warner and TCM for having made this a better place. The guidlines have been spelled out and the moderation has been more proactive. Being in a town with no law and no cops is OK in a Cinemascope movie western, but so much so in the real world!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

speakthelma.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

YEAH?! Well YOU should see what Fred has just said about Thelma Todd in ANOTHER thread, and THEN we'll see how you REALLY feel about this whole thing, lady!!!

 

(....WAIT...I'm just kiddin' here...Ol' Fred didn't say anything at all about Thelma Todd, ThelmaTodd or whatever your REAL name is anyway...I just couldn't resist typin' this, THAT'S all)

 

ROFL...again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drago2, I knew it would only take people only a matter of minutes to find the thread I was referring to.

 

Too many clues, my name, and that certain actor's name, pretty easy to figure out I know.

 

Any way, I am glad you got a good laugh from it and hope you didn't hurt yourself in the fall. :)

 

 

 

Thanks

Lori

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is no credible evidence that Ruby knew Oswald prior to the

Kennedy assassination, that Oswald was a patsy, or that Ruby was

acting as some kind of hired hit man to silence Oswald about a

supposed conspiracy. Oswald was in police custody for almost 48

hours before he was shot by Ruby, so if there had been a conspiracy,

he had ample time to tell investigators about it. If Oswald had not asked

to change his clothes at the last minute, he would have left the jail before

Ruby ever arrived. Ruby was known as a hothead who was extremely

saddened by the killing of Kennedy and so he shot Oswald. While the

story is interesting, it's also rather basic and not very mysterious.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened tonight was why I was trying, stupidly probably, to refocus this thread on what the admin was talking about at the beginning. Throwing a few obvious jokes into a thread isn't so bad, but being cruel and nasty in anonymity in order to throw water on another's enthusiasm is really low.

 

And don't even try to tell me that it's somehow my fault for being too sensitive or doing too much "hand wringing".

 

That kind of behavior shouldn't exist between adults on a "fan board".

 

Edited by: ginnyfan on Sep 15, 2012 11:29 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Fred did mention he had interviewed Walker, but I had forgotten about

it. I've read that Walker was doing his taxes at his dining room table when the

bullet went in. Maybe taxes helped save him from death. I don't think there's

much doubt that Oswald was the one who took that shot at Walker.

 

Not to be overserious about the matter, but The Manchurian Candidate concerned

an assassin who was programmed to kill someone by others. I believe that Oswald

was doing it on his own for his own reasons, however delusional they might have been.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Lori3 wrote:}{quote}I would say this problem of "bullies" or nasty posts or forum flamewars will never end here.

>

> It is very sad that people can't just do like the old saying goes, "If you don't have anything nice to say or write then don't say or write anything".

>

> The problem is that we all get caught up in this "mess" and fall into the trap of being "nasty" ourselves in the reply.

>

> I personally have had enough, and sometime after this next week, I plan to pull away a lot from these boards. I know it won't be of any big loss to the boards. I plan to post only when I feel I absolutely need to.

>

> A "nasty" and I would say uncalled for comment just occurred on a recently started thread. See if you can figure out which one it is.

>

> Lori

 

 

Sorry to see that, Lori. But do not go away! Stay and play on the message board...

I wish I could find a Garfield quote for this, but it's late and me can hardly keep me eyes open...

 

(As for John Garfield, I do like him too. I know him best from "The Postman Always Rings Twice." But I've also seen him on TCM in the following (think they've all been on TCM) and been very impressed: "Gentleman's Agreement," "Force of Evil," "Out of the Fog," "The Breaking Point," and "The Sea Wolf."

BTW, Miss Wonderly, "The Sea Wolf" has some connections to a certain forest city in Ontario, Canada... Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sea_Wolf_%281941_film%29)

 

Anyway, pay Dobbs no mind, Lori. Obviously he doesn't seem to like Garfield for some reason??

Who knows??

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Bildwasser wrote:}{quote}I think Fred did mention he had interviewed Walker, but I had forgotten about

> it. I've read that Walker was doing his taxes at his dining room table when the

> bullet went in. Maybe taxes helped save him from death. I don't think there's

> much doubt that Oswald was the one who took that shot at Walker.

>

> Not to be overserious about the matter, but The Manchurian Candidate concerned

> an assassin who was programmed to kill someone by others. I believe that Oswald

> was doing it on his own for his own reasons, however delusional they might have been.

 

 

 

We're kinda getting waaaay off-topic here but I do agree with you about Oswald.

But others disagree with us and we can argue with them until the cows come home about it. I think that happened on another thread...

 

As for "The Manchurian Candidate," I just meant that it came out before the assassination, being released in theatres on October 24, 1962, and there were some allegations that Frank Sinatra had the film withdrawn after November 22, 1963. Also, Oswald allegedly saw the film before he allegedly did what he did and it allegedly may have contributed to his mindset before he allegedly did what he did (IMHO, you can remove the word "allegedly" from all of the above as I do believe Oswald was guilty and acted alone, but that's my personal opinion and I don't want to start World Wars 3, 4, and 5 over it.) Anyway, the Wiki article on the film summarizes it here:

 

 

Hollywood rumor holds that Sinatra removed the film from distribution after the [John F. Kennedy assassination|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination|John F. Kennedy assassination] on November 22, 1963. Strictly speaking, the film was not completely removed from distribution, as is proved by [Time magazine|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28magazine%29|Time (magazine)]'s archives section online.^[[5]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate_%281962_film%29#cite_note-4]^ Certainly the film was rarely shown in the decades after 1963, but it did appear in the CBS Thursday Night Movie series on September 16, 1965 and once more later that season. In the 1970s, it was shown twice on NBC, in the spring of 1974 and summer of 1975. This, however, is almost certainly substantially less airplay than most other movies of the same period received. It has also been said that Sinatra did not acquire distribution rights to The Manchurian Candidate until the late 1970s. This claim has been offered as evidence that he did not withdraw it for reasons of discretion, and that nobody else did either. However, he could easily have influenced such a decision without actually holding the distribution rights. In 1988, Sinatra then became involved in a theatrical re-release of the film. In an interview in 1988, Larry King asked Sinatra if he did not know that he owned the film at the time of its creation. Sinatra then replied that he did not know he owned the publishing rights to the movie, but that apparently one of his employees had made a pretty good deal, but that he didn't know about it at the time. Sinatra also told King in the same interview that he had wondered why the movie was not released when it was finished, but he did not take the effort to look into it. In recent years, the film has aired very occasionally on the [Turner Classic Movies|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Classic_Movies|Turner Classic Movies] and [American Movie Classics|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Movie_Classics|American Movie Classics] cable networks.

 

 

Michael Schlesinger, who was responsible for the film's 1988 reissue, maintains that the film's apparent withdrawal was unrelated to the Kennedy assassination. He says that the film was "simply played out" by 1963, and that the original deal with [united Artists|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists|United Artists] was for ten years (though uncompleted TV contracts were permitted to play off). Sinatra's then-attorney, who admittedly made a bad deal, elected not to renew, even though extending such contracts was common practice. It was not until Sinatra got a new attorney that a new deal was struck with UA (now absorbed into MGM). According to this scenario, the 1963 assassinations of [Medgar Evers|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medgar_Evers|Medgar Evers] and [President Kennedy|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy|John F. Kennedy] played no role in the film's near-disappearance for decades.^[[citation needed|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed|Wikipedia:Citation needed]]^

 

h2.

 

 

So I just meant that a thread about "The Manchurian Candidate" would be as good a place as any to get into the JFK stuff...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}

> > There is no credible evidence that Ruby knew Oswald prior to the Kennedy assassination, that Oswald was a patsy, or that Ruby was acting as some kind of hired hit man to silence Oswald

> Naivete CAN be cute in adults, but not very often.

>

> I have a question - why did you decide to not only start talking about cereal again (which a lot of people have expressed indignation over), but to actually start up with that whole JFK thing again, like one closed thread isn't enough - even going so far as to post pictures of Oswald right out of the blue?

>

>

> Not looking for a defense on this but I can't help but be really curious as to your motivation. I mean, really curious.

>

 

 

Miss Wonderly raised the issue of what happened on another thread and was explaining her response. That's where this came from.

 

As I said, maybe a thread about "The Manchurian Candidate" or any other films that arguably have some relation to assassination would be a more appropriate place for this subject and then users can argue until the cows come home.

 

So I think Wonderly raised the other thread and that's where the Oswald photo came from and the other stuff.

 

So whatever.

I don't know if these are meant as examples of types of comments that start wars? I'm not that bright??

Maybe it's satire of various styles of comments that have started trouble on other threads and so on this thread we're supposed to come up with how a user is supposed to properly deal with them in a way that doesn't start World war 3 on the message board??

 

For example, how do you appropriately deal with a user who posts a photo out of nowhere like the Oswald one here.

How to deal with it appropriately when a user raises past issues that caused trouble in another thread (like Miss Wonderly did here) and that starts to cause trouble again in the current thread.

How to deal with it appropriately when a user complains about another user in this thread for stuff that other user did in another thread...

See what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it was hlywdkjk ( "kyle in hollywood") who brought up the *2001* thread here, not me. I was merely trying to clarify for him his mistaken belief that it had descended into "armpit humour" with the mention of "loogies'".

(God, if anyone's reading this thread for the first time, it must sound absolutely ridiciulous.)

 

I was just trying to explain to kyle that I'd posted a link to a funny parody of the Oliver Stone film about JFK, not to bring down the level of the discussion, but to sort of point out that there didn't seem to be much discussion anymore anyway.

I was just citing it as example of how sometimes it is appropriate to bring a humourous non-sequitor into a thread.

And in fact, when I brought it up here ( merely to explain the above, I never went into the JFK thing myself) I said something like "And God forbid all that gets started again".

(Although I see that that part of the post seems to be gone now. Very weird.)

 

Anyway, I 've had it with trying to make myself understood and getting either ignored or misinterpreted. Again, I feel like a kid, earnestly trying to explain herself to the impatient righteous grownups who just want the matter ( and possibly the kid) to go away.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this thread for their fascinating responses. Your thoughtful comments indicate a reasonable effort to foster a bit less hostility is not going to work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this thread for their fascinating responses. Your thoughtful comments indicate a reasonable effort to foster a bit less hostility is not going to work.

It's a pity...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}

>

>

>is not going to work.

 

 

Is this a typo? Our suggestions are going to work??

 

If they aren't going to work, that is sad...

 

Edited by: RMeingast on Sep 16, 2012 10:49 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}Your thoughtful comments indicate (that) a reasonable effort to foster a bit less hostility is not going to work.

Yeah, so often people give me a "thoughtful", rational and/or considerate explanation for something and I say, "gee, that's nice, but it really inspires me to take the most *unreasonable* approach possible to solving things."

 

Great idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Actually, it was hlywdkjk ( "kyle in hollywood") who brought up the *2001* thread here, not me. I was merely trying to clarify for him his mistaken belief that it had descended into "armpit humour" with the mention of "loogies'".

> (God, if anyone's reading this thread for the first time, it must sound absolutely ridiciulous.)

>

> I was just trying to explain to kyle that I'd posted a link to a funny parody of the Oliver Stone film about JFK, not to bring down the level of the discussion, but to sort of point out that there didn't seem to be much discussion anymore anyway.

> I was just citing it as example of how sometimes it is appropriate to bring a humourous non-sequitor into a thread.

> And in fact, when I brought it up here ( merely to explain the above, I never went into the JFK thing myself) I said something like "And God forbid all that gets started again".

> (Although I see that that part of the post seems to be gone now. Very weird.)

>

>

> Anyway, I 've had it with trying to make myself understood and getting either ignored or misinterpreted. Again, I feel like a kid, earnestly trying to explain herself to the impatient righteous grownups who just want the matter ( and possibly the kid) to go away.

>

My mistake, thanks, Miss Wonderly. I was half-asleep when I wrote that post this a.m. (and late last night too).

 

 

I forgot you were replying to hlywdkjk.

 

 

And nobody wants you to go away or is ignoring you... This thread is just about trying to make the message board better for everybody, I believe...

 

Edited by: RMeingast on Sep 16, 2012 11:01 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this thread for their fascinating responses. Your thoughtful comments indicate a reasonable effort to foster a bit less hostility is not going to work.

 

I have to jump in with the others who wish to know why "thoughtful comments" indicate such negativity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think there are several issues involved here. The Admin's OP dealt with civility; not so much with the frustrating, wildly-off topic posts that seem to have occurred. The off-topic threads don't have to lead to nastiness, though they sometimes do; but the OP's concerns had more to do with not being nasty more than not being off-topic.

 

Although I don't encourage off-topic conversations (though I may have been guilty of them, ever so slightly, from time to time), I think it's possible to wander a little but still not be rude. Of course if you wander too much, that's rude in itself, but still, not the flagrant, explicit nastiness that seems to be the OP's concern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, points well taken. In general, I've appreciated all of Michael's comments here, but that one seemed to be a bit "off" for lack of a better expression.

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