logo Sign In

FanFiltration

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Jan-2006
Last activity
26-Dec-2018
Posts
4,699

Post History

Post
#316558
Topic
China
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316558/action/topic#316558
Time
lordjedi said:

Apparently no one caught this:


FanFiltration said:

This tool is for people such as myself that enjoy baiting, and also observing the types of debate tactics, reactions, and over reactions employed by the posters here.


lordjedi said:

And here you admit to baiting, which is generally a bannable offense on most sites. There are actually statements in the TOS that could fall under that, but I'll leave it to the mods to decide if it's worth a ban.


You are taking my statement out of context. "Baiting" with the intent to draw someone into a civil dialog, political or social debate is common here, and not done for the use of causing personal grief to members such as personal name calling tactics. "Baiting" for personal attacks is something that I do not endorse or engage in. Please reference a direct act of any bannable type of "Baiting" that you feel I have done here on OT. Harmless "Baiting" can be used in debate for luring a person into using "logical fallacies" such as I mentioned before. A good example of harmful "Baiting" would be the last few posts above directed at me specifically on a past personal medical and legal issue. I'm sure the intent of the posters is to have me respond or react in an emotional manner to the statements, and make me feel uncomfortable on a purely personal level, and also feel unwelcome. That is destructive"Baiting" to cause personal unsolicited grief to a specific OT member for reasons outside the scope of the topic. I'm not asking anyone to be banned for it, but that kind of digging up of personal issues for an attack is still out of line and uncalled for. That kind of tactic is way more in line with a bannable offense.

All that I have done in this thread is make a few general statements about the
way issues are debated here on this forum, and on the internet. I targeted no one member in a personal manner, did not lie, nor make any false accusations to personally discredit, or lure anyone into a heated debate with the sole intent to create an unwelcoming atmosphere for members, or detract from the discussion. That seems to be the agenda of others for sure, but not me. What I have done with my statements in this thread is no worse then other posters making general insults about liberals, conservatives, hippies, conspiracy nuts, etc.! My original post of the graph was a response to a back and forth argument about "killing the planet". It was a one sentence comment and the photo of a graph, as well as a quote from the article that the graph was taken from. After that, all my posts in this thread have related to me answering questions people have asked me about that graph, and my reasons for posting it.
Post
#316543
Topic
China
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316543/action/topic#316543
Time
Johnboy3434 said:

Anchorhead said:

For someone who claims to be a victim of gang stalking & police harassment - to the point of having to go to the hospital with chest pains caused by anxiety and stress - I'm surprised you revel in your ability to bother others. Your treatment of other people's distress, as well as your repeated condescension seems more like the behavior of someone seeking to repair their own bruised ego.


I'm starting to wonder if his "reveling" is what got the gangs and police on his ass in the first place. He seems like the kind of person to open his mouth when he should keep it shut.


In fact, my big mouth in that situation has had very nice financial and political benefits, and still more to come. *grin*
Post
#316526
Topic
China
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316526/action/topic#316526
Time
It's amusing how many of you take things far too serious and obviously very personal. I had not even directed my comments to anyone of you personally, or to either side of the issue in question. But yet, a number of people here took the comments to be about them and became defensive. Why is that? Could it be that the old saying "If the shoe fits..." applies here? The reactions to even the most general and obtuse comments brings almost the same typical programed reactions from a number of posters here in nearly every subject thread. I'm reminded of the experiments of Pavlov and his dogs. Sorry if such tactics annoy some, but I find this all very amusing. Thats what some of us are here for, entertainment. Do some of you truly feel you are changing anyones mind about any issues here? By the amount of strong emotions placed in some of the postings, I think they do. Do some lose sleep about any of this, have their ego bruised, or even carry a feeling of pride of a battle well fought over this banter? Does the ability to have personal interactions and debate with others outside the virtual confines of this forum mirror your etiquette here? If so, that's sad for some of you.

I would like to direct you to a great web tool that will help label and classify the "logical fallacies" employed by many of our forum members. This tool is for people such as myself that enjoy baiting, and also observing the types of debate tactics, reactions, and over reactions employed by the posters here. With this reference tool and also a bit of searching and reading over other subjects posted in the Off Topic area, you can identify and tag many members with ease. It's fun and educational. It may even help in your personal debate skills if you sometime feel the need to take one on.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Post
#316525
Topic
China
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316525/action/topic#316525
Time
C3PX said:

Hmm, after reading FF's previous post, I suddenly feel the need to quote myself.

C3PX said:

Funny thing about your graph FF, is that I am pretty sure you feel you are represented by that red line... which kind of proves your point.



Arnie, of course the statistics in show in that graph are not real. It is actually pretty impossible to get accurate statistics on anything, and for most things it is downright impossible. How could you possibly get statistics on how many people "think they know" and how many really "do know". It is funny that someone who thinks they are the wise man watching fools trip over themselves in a maze would post such a thing. Just the fact that he thinks he is represented by the red line defaults him over to the blue line.

A true mark of wisdom is coming to the realization that you can't possibly know everything or anywhere close to it.


I think you are conveniently overlooking the fact that I posted in my follow up comment about the chart's origin, that I think the entire thing was purely entertaining. But, that was expected.


Post
#316512
Topic
China
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316512/action/topic#316512
Time
Why would I leave? This is so fun.

It's kind of like watching rats in a maze, or monkeys in a zoo.

I got that graph from a very entertaining article about how the seeds of the next American civil war can be seen in worthless debates such as this. I'm sure some of you would find it purely entertaining as I had, some will cringe in fear, others will be down right offended by it, and some of you will not have the ability or fortitude to read it at all.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/civilwar.html

Now please, let the battle continue. Remember, your hate makes you stronger. *Grin*

"Who is influencing the opinions of American youth today? It is a core of cyber peers, massively popular untrained and uneducated writers on the internet that, together, command an audience of tens of millions of future voters and leaders and fighters. They do not have editors or real publishing costs. They answer to no one. They relate to the web surfers as friends.

And, they are morons."
Post
#316497
Topic
China
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316497/action/topic#316497
Time
The abundant lack of intelligence of people who post on this forum just floors me.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/knowgraph.gif

"The ignorant can be trusting and thus can be governed. The misinformed are impossible to govern because they cannot be talked out of the skewed rubbish they think they know. - Dr. Albert Oxford, PhD
Post
#316434
Topic
Oliver Stone's "W" with Josh Brolin playing George W. Bush
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316434/action/topic#316434
Time
An early draft of Oliver Stone's Bush, the life story of our 43rd president, has been leaked to ABC and is garnering attention from various news outlets. Not to be outdone, Slate has acquired a copy of the screenplay, dated October 15, 2007, and titled Bush, though IMDB now lists the working title as W. In Stone's words, the film asks: "How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?"

The screenplay, written by Stanley Weiser, plays up the rivalry between W. and his father, suggests at least one conspiracy theory, and dramatizes W.'s near-fatal encounter with a pretzel in 2002. But compared with Stone's paranoid take on the JFK assassination, the script lacks imagination. For the most part, it trots out well-known Bushisms ("I'm the decider," "shock and awe," "is our children learning," and "axis of evil") and seems content to re-create equally well-known events from Bush's presidency (pressuring George Tenet to produce actionable intelligence on Iraq, proclaiming "mission accomplished" on the USS Lincoln).

Spoiler alert: Bush gets the intelligence he needs, but the mission isn't quite accomplished. If you're not averse to a few other spoilers, follow Slate's handy guide straight to the good parts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2188423/
Post
#316107
Topic
Leading To War
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316107/action/topic#316107
Time
Tiptup said:

"We" is a statement that includes all of us in the sense that what our government does, we do. This is a government for the people and by the people, even when we disagree with what happens. We give lots of money to people in the form of welfare spending every year (far more than we spend on military or war) and I still say "we" even though I find that to be incredibly stupid. If you disagree with my wording, then I don't really give a shit (since your distinction and worry is a little too anal retentive).

Otherwise, there have been many who supported the war thinking the Bush administration would have performed it in more intelligent ways. The war was not and is not unjustified in their minds. It's been poorly managed by misguided and simplistic thinking.


Gosh! No need to be so defensive, as I was only asking for clarification of the term "We". No need to over react so. I am in no way "worried", and only trying to participate in the discussion. Seems like many around this forum are a bit to oversensitive about simple comments in a forum meant to communicate ideas from all perspectives of it's user base. The need for name calling and juvenile put downs are a bit to common these days in this and other message forums around the net. Yet another example of our societies current lack of capacity to communicate and discuss issues in a civil and educated way.
Post
#316099
Topic
Leading To War
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316099/action/topic#316099
Time
Tiptup said:

zombie84 said:

The American Revolution was a choice a nation made for itself, not one forced upon them by an outside occupier.


This is very true and reflects the largest mistake that the Bush administration has made and is still making today. We thought we would be greeted as wonderful liberators when we should have been ready to be tough occupiers.


When you say "We" I hope you are not saying the entire nation felt this way. There was warning after warning that going to war was going to lead to this end, but anyone who opposed the wisdom of the war hawks got shouted down as "hatters of America' and "lefty morons". Only the sheeple who followed the Bush call to war with his lie coated propaganda are shocked with this outcome. Please don't try to include everyone and say that there was ever some kind of united consensus for this war amongst the population. Objection to the war and predictions of this kind of turn out had been stated well in advance, but the Bush administration and right wing media worked overtime to suppress any decent to the war plan. To use an old phrase, "Told you so".
Post
#316078
Topic
Oliver Stone's "W" with Josh Brolin playing George W. Bush
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316078/action/topic#316078
Time
Taolar said:

FanFiltration said:


Rob Corddry ... Ari Fleischer


That's GOT to be a joke.


I think that is the best casting choice in the film!

Look at the casting of "Natural Born Killers". Very diverse and in a way spot on in every aspect. Rodney Dangerfield was so out of his normal typecasted role, but at the same time kicked ass in the part of the abusive pedifile father. To me, Ari Fleischer had a slime ball / used car salesman quality about him, and Corddry has played that type very well on the daily show.

Post
#316068
Topic
Oliver Stone's "W" with Josh Brolin playing George W. Bush
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/316068/action/topic#316068
Time
C3PX said:

The finest most carefully made gourmet dish mixed with shit might as well be pure shit. In the end only shit eaters are going to eat the shit mixed dish. Moore is a retard, it is really sad to see so many people eat his shit dishes. You can't really hide behind the excuse that his films are still valid based on a few honest tidbits surrounded by hyperbole and bending the truth for entertianment values sake. If the honest tidbits in his films are so scandalous, then why do they require stretching for the sake of ticket sales? Just a thought.


You make a great point and good argument! But it works the same on all sides of every single political and social issue. Your "shit mixed dish" analogy is exactly how lots of folks feel about the Bush administration's reasons for going to war. There is so much bullshit in the mix that like many people, I can't take any of his justifications for the Iraq war seriously, or as you put it, "eat his shit dishes". Most people in America on all sides of the political spectrum eat up bullshit because it's what they want to believe, not taking the time to try and filter fact from fiction at all. And it's not going to change anytime soon. There is no pure truth out there, and one must go above and beyond one or two media, religious, political, education, or entertainment sources to form a logical perspective of issues. It's human nature to accept what makes you feel good without question, and most people in the public eye use that to their political advantage.
Post
#315921
Topic
Oliver Stone's "W" with Josh Brolin playing George W. Bush
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/315921/action/topic#315921
Time
Go get him Oliver!

Did you guys see the news about this film that is being rushed into production about "W" before his time is up? At first I thought it was a joke. But it's on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

Josh Brolin ... George W. Bush

Elizabeth Banks ... Laura Bush

Thandie Newton ... Condoleezza Rice

Ioan Gruffudd ... Tony Blair

James Cromwell ... George Herbert Walker Bush

Ellen Burstyn ... Barbara Bush

Jeffrey Wright ... General Colin Powell

Rob Corddry ... Ari Fleischer

"Like a bill being rapidly pushed through legislation, Oliver Stone's film about President George W. Bush is expected to begin shooting within a month with a goal toward being released before the president leaves office next January.


A person close to the film, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because plans were still being formalized, said Stone's W. will begin filming in late April in Shreveport, Louisiana. The Academy Award-winning director only began shopping his script for financing in January, but has quickly captured the interest of investors and Hollywood.
Stone has said that the film, which will focus on the life and presidency of Bush, won't be an anti-Bush polemic, but, as he told Daily Variety, "a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?"


Representatives for Stone would not confirm reports in Variety and elsewhere about casting decisions because of unfinalized contracts. Expected to play the president is Josh Brolin, who played another Texan in the Coen brothers' Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men.


Expected to portray First Lady Laura Bush is Elizabeth Banks, whose credits include The 40 Year-Old Virgin and the upcoming Zach and Miri Make a Porno.


W. will be Stone's third film dealing with presidential matters, following Nixon and JFK. The filmmaker has been an outspoken critic of the administration's decision to invade Iraq.


A Hollywood firebrand, Stone's films also include the Vietnam sagas Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon, which won four Oscars including best picture and director, and 2006's World Trade Center, about two policemen buried in the rubble of the towers after the Sept. 11 attacks."
Post
#315894
Topic
Leading To War
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/315894/action/topic#315894
Time
Also, around early 2007 A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provided new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. An assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings. This new Pentagon investigation had criticized many Pentagon officials for conducting their own pre-war intelligence analysis with thel purpose of finding false links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda with the sole aim of bolstering public support for war with Iraq via the media.

Post
#313794
Topic
(SPOILER) new "STAR TREK" 2009 spoiler thread (SPOILER)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/313794/action/topic#313794
Time
My friend who is 35 and grew up in England, never saw the original series. He did see a few of the movies with that cast, but never an entire episode. I got the 3 box sets, and we watched them all. He liked it. He did think a few of the episodes are very dated and foolish ("Spock's Brain", "Catspaw", "Way to Eden"), but over all he was glad he saw it. If a person can remember when this show was made, and likes things with a flavor of the 1960s, then this show is not that bad. If you need everything to be new and state of the art, then you are going to hate it. In return, he showed me a few early seasons of The Avengers, and I love it!
Post
#313714
Topic
(SPOILER) new "STAR TREK" 2009 spoiler thread (SPOILER)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/313714/action/topic#313714
Time
Johnboy3434 said:



I'll be following a hybrid chronological/order of release method, wherein I'll watch each series in the order it was released, but the episodes and movies of each series in chronological order according to a timeline I found on the 'Net. It's going to be a big undertaking, so I'm starting well over a year in advance. Wish me luck!



Can you post the link to that timeline? Thanks.
Post
#313671
Topic
(SPOILER) new "STAR TREK" 2009 spoiler thread (SPOILER)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/313671/action/topic#313671
Time
Nemesis is a very weak film, but it's not god-awful. It just does not feel like a "Star Trek" film to me. Most of the problem was due to the director and producer. The director did not spend too much time on the "Trek" type moments as other directors had. The story just felt like it was a re-hashed version of a few passed episodes mixed together. The "Mad Max" style dune buggy chase/fight felt out of place in "Trek".

The Romulans are very under used, and the new Reman guys are not explained very well or used. Come on, fans have wanted to see more of the Romulans as kick ass as bad guys for years, and when they had the chance they blew it. They could have had Denise Crosby return as the half Romulan Sela once more, and we could have seen her fate. But no...

The Remens felt like nothing more then space vampires to me. They sucked.
The B-4 Data twin thing was something done way better in the past with LORE, and I feel it would have been much better just to have had the great evil LORE come back. B-4 was foolish. They did not even talk about LORE in the move in regards to finding B-4, and that was strange to me. The Troy mind rape was not something that helped the story at all, and was something done much better in a past STNG episode. It was as if it was put into the film just to give Troy some extra screen time. The Picard clone did not look like Picard. It did not feel or act like it was a clone of him, so it did not work for me. Patrick Stewart should just have had a duel role. More Patrick Stewart is never a bad thing.

We get like zero character development in this movie. Ok, Riker and Troy do tie the knot, but we saw that coming for years. It would have been nice to show a development of Picard and the Doctor love relationship once and for all. At least that would have taken that story full circle. Star Trek Five had much better Character Development then Nemesis.

They knew this was going to be the last movie for this cast, and they just blew it.