| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 07/18/2010 : 03:57:33
|
Why have these films been removed please?
1 2 3 4 5 |
 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 13:43:49
|
I can't see why the first four would be chopped but the fifth is definitely not a movie - it's a 45 minute TV Christmas special for Bo' Selecta. Why would that not be removed?  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 06:16:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Then people started getting huffy about how long it took to get films added. So benj gave the users the opportunity to add the films themselves by copying the film's url from IMDb. This resulted in people adding non-films to the site.
Because people got all huffy about certain reviews that they felt were violating some rule or other, benj created the "Report" button (sometimes referred to as the "nazi button," but not in public because that really P's some people O and gets them on a tirade about unfair misnomers, but I digress). This resulted in (we are told) a separate backlog of films/reviews that need to be reexamined.
With all of that extra work being tacked on -- by the users, mind you -- it was inevitable that some if not many films/reviews would escape correction/deletion/re-education for a while before being addressed. Also, since benjy doesn't work as just the editor of the FWFR, we are fortunate that he devotes the considerable amount of time he has devoted to the site, which we all use for free to obtain hours and hours of enjoyment.
Let's not have a revisionist version of F.W.F.R. history, MguyX.
People being able to add films to the site directly bears no relation to what types of film have been added. Before they could do so, Benj explicitly and repeatedly stated that this site followed the I.M.D.B. in what was classified as a film. There was never an occasion where someone asked for a film to be added and he declined. People adding films and Benj's change of opinion are totally separate matters.
People often like to confuse the situation by talking about such-and-such not being a movie. Despite one of the alternative domains, this is the Four Word Film Review, and film is a broader term than movie (shorts and I would say documentaries are not movies, for example). Therefore, some people are getting all high and mighty about certain entries not being within a parameter that has never been implied on any level. Now, that's not to say that some of the removed entries are also not films, but some of them certainly are.
The Report feature was not created because people were 'huffy' or because they demanded it. It is simply a more efficient way (for Benj, especially) of doing what was already happening via specialised threads, one of the main ones of which you started. It therefore did not create work: it saved it. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 04:22:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
People being able to add films to the site directly bears no relation to what types of film have been added.
Wha? I can go to IMDb, copy the url for a sitcom and add it. Like this. Accordingly, the ability to add correlates directly with the incidence of non-films being added. When benj was the only "adder," this was not an issue. So you are wrong.
Nope. I had forgotten about that glitch, but that is not the issue at hand. Any title which has come through in inverted commas, and relatively there have not been many, has always been routinely and promptly removed by Benj when he has glanced through the new-films list. The entries being removed en masse at the moment are ones that the I.M.D.B. has classified as films, and thus didn't come through in inverted commas. (What I previously said covered this anyway, as I mentioned types of film. Your example is not categorised as a film by the I.M.D.B. or anyone else.)
quote:
quote:
There was never an occasion where someone asked for a film to be added and he declined.
Really? Perhaps during your tenure as benj's personal secretary you were privy to each of his decisions, though I wonder whether you were present at all times. The key word in your tell-all revelation is "film": no, benj likely seldom declined to add a "film," as he was able to confirm that it was a "film" in the first place.
As above, I wasn't thinking about people trying to add things which the I.M.D.B. classified as non-films. In the unlikely event that anyone tried to add any of those when Benj had to process them, then yes, he would have declined those. However, in the time before people could add films directly, I added a huge number, very likely the most or second only to Josh. As I followed his explicitly stated rule of I.M.D.B.-classified films being the exact set of what was allowed here, I never, ever had one declined. (It had to be done via submitting dummy reviews, so I would have seen if any film had not been approved. This included television specials, D.V.D. extras, miniseries and all the categories that are now being partially culled.) I am therefore confident that I am indeed a very good judge of what the rules were at that time.
quote:
quote:
People adding films and Benj's change of opinion are totally separate matters.
Wrong on both counts: people adding and being able to add anything is the core matter; and who, other than you, said benj changed his mind? Deletion of an improperly added item does not necessarily constitute a change of mind; it very well may constitute an overdue policing issue, as with Playboy.
I think the above clarifies adequately that it was a change of mind. I don't mind his change of mind (although I disagree with some of the removals): it's just important not to pretend that it has not occurred and that all these demon F.W.F.R.ers have only brought things upon themselves.
quote:
quote:
Despite one of the alternative domains, this is the Four Word Film Review, and film is a broader term than movie (shorts and I would say documentaries are not movies, for example).
And "jet" is different than "black," right? Much like the "loo" is differemt than the "restroom." Yellowtail is not Ono, which is not bluefin, which is not bigeye, but they are all tuna, which is not pompano, or trout, or salmon, though they are all sushi (if served the right way). Six.
No idea what you're talking about there.
quote:
the gods of FWFR, namely, benj and the MERPs, who ARE the decisionmakers.
Well, the MERPs are nothing to do with this at all (they assess reviews, not films), so I don't know why you're mentioning them.
quote:
so you would accuse God of arrogance for imposing His rules if they seemed inconsistent to You?
Well, God doesn't exist so that's a meaningless scenario.
quote:
quote:
Now, that's not to say that some of the removed entries are also not films, but some of them certainly are.
Name the ones that are, Rudy, so we can have a go at it.
Um, I already have.
quote:
quote:
The Report feature was not created because people were 'huffy' or because they demanded it. It is simply a more efficient way (for Benj, especially) of doing what was already happening via specialised threads, one of the main ones of which you started. It therefore did not create work: it saved it.
The nazi button creates work because it creates a log: it's just a more efficient way of streamlining the same work that would be created by relegating complaints to the fourum.
Well, that's obviously not creating work then, is it? Making the same work more efficient is not creating work by any stretch of even your overactive imagination.
I can simply remember the history of F.W.F.R. and don't have any agenda to falsify it. At least one of those things is evidently not the case for you. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 05:37:12
|
| Stay tuned folks, I don't think this is over. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 00:08:53
|
| Other Young Indiana Jones films have been removed, so I don't understand why this one is still here. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 01:50:12
|
I see that I gotta do a little ass-kickin here, but I have to attend to important things first. This is just a place-holder, so don't run away Sal; I'll be back. I'm back.
Salopian, you need to understand and abide by the principles of honest argument, because you appear to be unaware that your skirt is showing. Like clockwork, your retorts demonstrate argumentative errors that render your comments often disingenuous, errantly myopic, and sometimes outright offensive. But it�s not like everyone can�t see this. That's Silly, isn't it?
You do know that I'm a lawyer, right? You do know that I argue for a living, right? And still you want to take me on with transparent misdirection? Sally forth, and let�s see how that works out for you.
Argumentative Errors
Ad Hominem
Ambiguity
Authority, (Fallacious) Appeal to
Begging the Question
Cause and Effect
Disjunctive Syllogism
Equivocation
False Dilemma
Guilt By Association
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Ignorance, Appeal to~
Loaded Question
Novelty, Appeal to
Poisoning the Well
Popularity, Appeal to
Quoting Out of Context
Red Herring
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Strawman
Sweeping Generalization
Tradition, Appeal to
Weak Analogy
Wishful Thinking
At some point in nearly all of your argumentative posts, you roll around in one or more of the above like a hog rolls in Slop, and you appear to love it. You offer up boorish declarations on occasion in an apparent effort to quell expression of divergent opinion. It�s like that person at a party or other gathering who won�t shut-up: rather than investing the time to address their incessant blather, people often give up, move on or otherwise acquiesce in his/her insistent but ultimately inconsequential demagoguery if even in the misguided belief that it will shortcut the gushing well of hebephrenia. Many people tend to just find a different corner of the party/event, laugh at the self-important idiot, and proceed to have a good time anyway. Oh, but please don�t think that I called you an inconsequential, demagogic, self-important idiot: I was just giving an example; I clearly said �It�s like that person ...� I also did not call you a pig: I said �hog,� and I clearly used the word �like.� As a professional editor, you will certainly recognize the use of simile.
You said: "People being able to add films to the site directly bears no relation to what types of film have been added." quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Hi all...
It's becoming a more and more common occurrence that undeniably non-films are being added to the site, despite the automated checks I put in place to avoid this. The problem here is largely that the IMDB doesn't always correctly classify entries or doesn't provide enough information to determine one way or the other. As fun as these entries may well be to write fwfrs for, they simply don't belong on a purported film-related site.
So... in order to curb this, I've started this thread where we can post non-films (or discuss borderlines) for possible blockage from the site. ...
From the mouth of the Master: undeniably non-films are being added to the site, despite automated checks.
Since we can safely assume that benj does not suffer from multiple personality disorder, the culprit, then, would be whom? That�s right: �all these demon F.W.F.R.ers.� By the way, just about everyone else calls them �fwiffers.� But as we will soon see, you appear to populate a solipsistic world of one, where no rules exist except for the ones you create or are forced to observe by circumstance, so there should probably be little wonder at the genesis of that variance. Again, however, I did not say that you in fact inhabit such a troll-like world; I said �appear to populate.� And I said troll �like.�
Anyway, in response to what you said, I responded by demonstrating that the add function allows people to add anything to the site (from IMDb), whether it is a film or not. If that function did not exist, people would not be able to add non-films. Since you have repeatedly acknowledged that benj did not add non-films to the site, THE NEW FUNCTION DEMONSTRATES A DIRECT CORRELATION TO THE INCIDENCE OF NON-FILM ADDITION; THEY ARE NOT ADDING THEMSELVES.
You then tried to change the argument by saying that all you were talking about was "types of films," which you did not define but which you imply was not intended to include non-films. So instead of acknowledging that people have caused a problem sometime by adding non-films (and no one said that they were malicious or �demon,� except you), you tried to deflect by redefining what you said. That is disingenuous on its face.
Post hoc and false authority arguments litter the sparse space of your cumulative prior posting. YOU declared that benj changed his mind on the Playboy items, not benj. I have never heard him say that. I will allow that he might have, but I am not privy to that information at present; rather, the Playboy items appear to constitute a long-overdue edit. I could be wrong, but I recall there being some criticism of their entry onto the site quite some time ago. And it also appears to me that benj has been quite busy since I physically last saw him (and Lisa - Hi Lisa!), so omitting to address the items until of late does not strike me as odd.
I happen to know the following for a FACT that:
you do not live with benj,
you do not frequent the same pubs as benj,
you don't go to movies together,
you don't work together,
and you don't have long, late-night telephone chats.
Ergo, your observations about what benj thinks is unadulterated fantasy. You don't know what benj thinks! But you make pronouncements as if you are the authority on ... benj! That is called argument from false authority, because you base many observations on statements that lack authority; things are not true simply because you say they are. That's false authority. Your conclusions as to what "must be the case" are mere after-the-fact assumptions presented as unsubstantiated fact. You appear to assume that the length of time the items stayed on the site indicates approval. It does not.
Your reliance on absolutes also undercuts your reliability. In my experience, the absolutes � �never� and �always� � are seldom accurate when I encounter them in argument. Accordingly, the more times they come up in discussion, the less reliable the argument they support (in my opinion). Again, however, that is just my experience; I would love to hear from others as to whether they find that such propositions typically boost their belief in otherwise unsubstantiated bullshit (a.k.a., bare assertion).
It starts to smell of false authority again. In my experience, people begin to rely on absolute propositions when discussing things that cannot be verified easily or at all. It's an easy way to get around the difficulty of proving difficult propositions, and it�s hard to demonstrate the error when there's no record. And when the absolutes argument repeatedly comes conjoined with propositions for which there is no record, Denmark starts gettin funky.
In this regard, you consistently act as if you have an infallible memory, and you claim a perfect record for film additions. But then you attempt to change the argument again by focusing only on your own purportedly perfect record, when your original observation was that no one had ever had a film addition request declined. You don't know that! (Excuse me, I�ll be right back: I�ve got to go turn the alarm off on my bullshitometer � there�s been a constant wail since the moment I read your original post).
You punted on my description of verisimilitude, so let me clarify: the division of �movie� from �film� is an artificial classification scheme. First, they are the same. Second, the effort to use them as if distinct smacks of pseudo-pedantry (or full-on pedantry, if you prefer), because, third, there is no general consensus that the two terms are different or what any such difference would be. It�s merely you trying to interject a false distinction in an attempt to, like, weasel out of being wrong by changing the discussion midstream. (Weasel? I said �like.�)
quote:
Well, the MERPs are nothing to do with this at all (they assess reviews, not films), so I don't know why you're mentioning them.
I think you meant �have� nothing to do with this, and apparently you�ve either been napping again, or you are making an assumption about what the MERPs do. Again, omniscience is not your strong suit.
quote:
Well, God doesn't exist so that's a meaningless scenario.
Yes he does; prove me wrong. You can�t, but don�t let me stop you from making an ass of yourself in an effort to try. You see, it is impossible to prove or disprove God�s existence, hence only faith and belief (born just as well of reason) are the end result for either side.
quote:
Well, that's obviously not creating work then, is it? Making the same work more efficient is not creating work by any stretch of even your overactive imagination.
Use of the button creates work. Whether it is more efficient work is not the issue. It creates work, quite independently of any imagination (unless you are suggesting that the work it creates is only a figment of my imagination, which means one of us is crazy, or disingenuous; maybe both).
quote:
I can simply remember the history of F.W.F.R. and don't have any agenda to falsify it. At least one of those things is evidently not the case for you.
Spot the argumentative error here? Begging the question (it begs the question whether your memory is accurate, and whether you have a falsification agenda). At least you used �evidently� before sinking into the last argumentative error instance. Wanna be a dear and identify that one?
* * *
Ian, I like you sometimes (I said �like�). Sometimes it is endearing that you go so far as to remember the birthdays of other fwiffers and make a special post. I even got a PM from you once on my birthday that I quite found touching. Many times you try to answer nonthreatening questions in the fourum in what appears to be a genuine attempt merely to be helpful. But then you get snippy, dogmatic and, like, fucking stupid sometimes. You display a psychotic paranoia that appears to prevent you from viewing yourself in any light under the rays of which you might appear wrong. Many times you have very valid editorial observations, and on other occasions you are just simply wrong. That�s when you really look like a dick.
Don�t get me wrong: I think you have some talent. You may recall that Jamie Foxx and I got into a tiff once, so I don�t care for the man; but I do not deny his quite considerable talent. You�re no Jamie Foxx of the editorial world (and certainly not of lawyers), but you have your skills. I would not deny or begrudge you that. But your paranoiac inability to accept correction is apparent and leaves you naked when you wear it. We can all see your junk.
And, in a sweeping gesture of grace, humility and aplomb, I accede to your undeniably accurate observation that this thread is where this discussion should occur. Indeed it is. (See benj instruction quoted above). Accordingly, as the English aphorism goes (I think), �A place for everything, and everyone in his place.�
Did I get that right? |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 07/26/2010 08:07:03 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 09:32:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
Stay tuned folks, I don't think this is over.
Oh, my God! Lemmy has ESP! |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 16:34:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
You do know that I'm a lawyer, right? You do know that I argue for a living, right? And still you want to take me on with transparent misdirection? Sally forth, and let�s see how that works out for you.
Argumentative Errors
Ad Hominem
Ambiguity
Authority, (Fallacious) Appeal to
Begging the Question
Cause and Effect
Disjunctive Syllogism
Equivocation
False Dilemma
Guilt By Association
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Ignorance, Appeal to~
Loaded Question
Novelty, Appeal to
Poisoning the Well
Popularity, Appeal to
Quoting Out of Context
Red Herring
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Strawman
Sweeping Generalization
Tradition, Appeal to
Weak Analogy
Wishful Thinking
Feel free to use these in no particular context:
"What are the parameters?"
"That sounds suspiciously like something Adolph Hitler might say."
"YOU'RE SO LINEAR!"
|
Edited by - Sludge on 07/26/2010 16:35:19 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 21:50:19
|
Sludge, that looks like something a baby seal killer would have posted: everybody knows that. Always. It's an inverse quid pro quo, i.e., not injuria absquae damnum, but you have failed to state your criteria in concrete terms: I can't run it up the flagpole!! And that just means more dead baby seals, my friend.   |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 07/26/2010 21:51:26 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 00:22:24
|
| For just this once, I'll move over my own personal barrier: Sally, MguyX is absolutely right. |
Edited by - randall on 07/27/2010 00:22:42 |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 07:01:09
|
Sal, you're not going to let this lie?
We're all logging in multiple times a day in anticipation of your response! You surely can't let an opportunity like this pass
A proportion of fourum-dwelling fwiffers regularly ignore or curse your posts, now they're hanging on with baited breath for 'the comeback' ...
|
Edited by - bife on 07/27/2010 07:01:29 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 08:20:17
|
bife: that's not the point (and yet it IS the point). All he was trying to do is get attention. He's gotten what he wants, and that's people paying attention to his presence/absence.
There is no comeback; at best, there's just more transparent demagoguery. The question really is whether his ego will betray the better sense simply to be silent, because there's nothing ingenious coming. Unless he uses words as mere place-holders, he would not get 15 words into his response without proving me accurate. Mark my words .... |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 07/27/2010 19:29:26 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 22:18:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Sal, you're not going to let this lie?
We're all logging in multiple times a day in anticipation of your response! You surely can't let an opportunity like this pass
A proportion of fourum-dwelling fwiffers regularly ignore or curse your posts, now they're hanging on with baited breath for 'the comeback' ...
Before the "subeditor" [or "copyeditor," as we say here in the US] gets there, it's "bated," as in "abated." Just trying to be helpful and save you some typing, Sally. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Non-films
