View Single Post
Old April 26 2013, 06:23 PM   #473
Locutus of Bored
The Locutest One of All
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
Location: Huntington Beach, California

Deck 1 - Bridge wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Deck 1 - Bridge wrote: View Post
I assume you didn't get around, just yet, to moderating your fellow BBS moderator who, several pages back, accused a fellow forumite of supporting, if not committing, motion picture piracy? I presume it's ok to flame people if you're a mod here?
I don't want to make extra trouble for M'Sharak, but I felt this needed to be clarified since in the midst of trying to throw someone else under the bus to distract attention away from your own over the top comments about drowning complainers, you managed to come to the completely opposite interpretation of what I actually said.

I asserted that they WOULDN'T be bootlegging the film and WOULD be paying the full price to see it in the theater so they could continue to argue with knowledge about the details of the film. There was no accusation of bootlegging on their part, just that sometimes they claim to have seen a bootleg at a friend's house so that they can brag about not wasting their money on the film. See the difference?

It's not even flaming even if I had said what you contend, and it sure is hell isn't remotely on par with saying you would like to drown people.
Rubbish, you implied piracy, and you know it. Backtracking now just makes it worse.
Wow. Usually when someone tells you that you misunderstood what they said the person then goes back to reread the post before they reply again and make the same accusation. It's just the height of laziness not to even take that most basic step.

Sorry, no backtracking necessary. It's not my problem that you either have poor reading comprehension or only read single sarcastic sentences out of a post without the whole context behind it that makes it obvious I'm implying the opposite. Here, I'll post it again, since you apparently can't be bothered to make even the most minimal effort yourself but insist on keeping the misrepresentation of myself and the mod of the forum going:

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
3) Pay to go see the movie in theaters so you can know the details enough to argue about it despite promising you wouldn't go see it and that you would stay away from the discussions.

4) Never admit that you paid to see the movie, and instead proudly insist that you saw a bootleg of the film at a "friend's house" so that you can claim to argue from authority, brag about not paying, and still not feel guilty about stealing because it wasn't you, it was "a friend."


See you in a few weeks after you see the "bootleg" at your "friend's house" and predictably return to tell us how despite your total open mindedness the movie is a complete piece of shit just like you've said it would be all along. Abrams' "slimy face" will enjoy spending the money that you said you wouldn't spend on seeing the movie.
Notice how I said they would pay to see the movie and only claim to have seen a bootleg so they can say they didn't waste any money on the film, and then followed it up by putting bootleg and friend's house in quotes, implying the opposite meaning?

I don't know if you were here after ST09 came out, but that's exactly what the most vocal opponents of the film said, that they had seen bootlegs of it because they wouldn't waste their money on JJ Abrams trash, but still wanted to be able to argue about it. I didn't believe it for a lot of them though, because even if you hate it, you'd still want to see the clearest picture and sound possible so you can participate in tearing it apart on the message boards as best as you can. Because unlike most people who think they will hate a movie or have no desire to see it, it's not enough for them to just avoid it or not talk about it, they have to beat it into the ground how much they loathe the film and show how much contempt they have for the fans, who clearly must be simpletons for liking something they don't.

That's not even the point though, it's the poor moderating that reeks of double standards that's the issue. As if, given choice, anyone would actually drown anyone/someone for not liking a Star Trek film, I mean come on, seriously? I presume most of us are able to understand context and nuance or are we all aspergic to a man, woman, child? (I am funnily enough)
No one was concerned that you were seriously going to drown any complainers. But that's not the issue. It's the toxicity and over-the-top nature of the comment that is the problem.

What's odd is that we're on the same general "side" of this issue regarding the people complaining about the film (minus the hyperbole of your comments), yet you're attempting to throw me under the bus to distract from your own misbehavior and to unfairly criticize the mod for a double-standard that didn't happen, and all over a comment that you clearly misunderstood, even after I pointed that out to you. Which is why it's funny to hear you complain about people not understanding context and nuance as well. Physician, heal thyself.

I think this whole conversation is rather silly, and I'm sure others do to, so I'd prefer if we could take it to PM from now on if you want to continue (though, god knows why). But please lay off the criticism of M'Sharak over my actions. I know I'm a smartass, but I didn't say what you think I said and there's no double-standard in his handling of the situation.
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote