Oh, I read it differently. I just thought he meant starting a thread in like Other and then linking TO the Bargains thread, not from.

Because Im in bargains for bargains. If I want to know if the director sleeps with goats or has shoplifted or is circumsized Ill go elsewhere.

And that is EXACTLY what a link does for you. By providing a link, you are not forcing the reader to read about anything you are not interested in.....that is why you would click on the link.

I knew about this creep and would avoid his work like the plague, but if I did not know, I would have appreciated a link with a little more information. Unlike a lot of people who post in the FORUM, I care about who I support with my purchases. Same goes for that jackass Robert Altman.

By your posts, you suggest every post on BARGAINS would look like this:

LOTR: $16.99, Best Buy.

(End of message)

When that day comes, we can start harassing people for giving a little bit of extra information about their purchases. Until then, this is a little over the top.

Hmmm... I"m pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-business and generally don't agree with environmentalists. So, any time I see (or someone reports to me) attacks on members of these groups, I'm willing to take action. I also have no problem in taking action against someone attacking gays, environmentalists, anarchists, etc. Of course, if no one reports the attacks, then I may never know that they took place regardless of who is attacking.

Also, it's important to remember that people are free to attack most any idea presented as long as they don't attack the people stating the ideas in the process. There are times when people feel attacked when in reality it is only the ideas they support that are being attacked.

FWIW, that's what I thought he meant too. In that form, I thought it was a good idea.

That's the other thing. I'm familiar with the politics of most of the 'Other' mods and admins and they all lean right or are complete right-wing wackos (see Dead), yet somehow lots of angry white guys seem to feel persecuted. Couldn't be further from the truth, IMHO.

Dont do me no favors. Im only borderline retarded. If I want to find out about the DVD Im buying I can do that. I dont need it in a thread in bargains.

Unless youre trying to derail the thread.

I think I have fodder for my sig

I guess I'd think it slightly off topic either way. In this reference to what started this, a thread about Salvas' past wouldn't be the place to post a bargain on a movie he directed any more than a thread about a deal on Powder would be the place to post about his past criminal activity. At least in Otter, it seems when a discussion starts to get off topic, the proper thing to do is start a new thread, link to it, and then move the discussion back on topic. I think the reason for disallowing off-topic posts was to keep threads free from irrelevant clutter. I was just trying to think of a way the original poster could've done what he wanted within the forum guidelines. I guess my question is: Is posting a link to a spin-off/off-topic discussion against the rules?

I dunno, I could also be considered three out of four, and I'm fairly vocal with my anti-abortion views in Other. And I've never been reprimanded for my views (as far as I can remember)... heck, they made me a mod. I haven't polled everyone, but it does seem like the mods are spread out fairly well, politically. I know I've had disagreements with other mods from time to time on certain issues, but we've all kept it respectful, and it's worked out fine.

With regards to tdirgins and the original topic: the issue isn't someone "agreeing (or disagreeing) with your views" on Victor Salva. The issues here are keeping discussions in the right place and ignoring forum moderators. From the very first post, jonathan.e requested that the particular thread he started stay on topic. For some reason, the two first posters to reply very knowingly went off topic. jonathan.e then made a SECOND request for posters in that particular thread to stay on topic, and yet after that you still decided to very knowingly go off topic.

There is a 7-page thread entitled Boycott Jeepers Creepers (also directed by Salva) in the DVD Talk Main forum. From the very beginning, the thread was about Salva and what he had done. I haven't paged all the way through it, but at least one moderator participated in the discussion. At certain points, the discussion went off track, but a moderator stepped in and reminded everyone that the thread was created for the purpose of discussing the director of that movie. The moderator wasn't trying to squelch viewpoints... he was just trying to keep the thread on topic.

Lastly, if you see a thread that is getting derailed for one reason or another and it's bothering you, please report the offending posts to the forum moderators, and they can try and help get the thread back on track.

Well, thanks for reading in to my post generalities about myself. I am some of those things, others I am not. It is true that I would not here about some of the people banned or suspended, but if you go back and read my posts I mention the ways in which moderators steer the conversation in ways that suit their tastes. I also stated that this is not the rule for ALL mods, just some.

Agreed. If you placed every mod on the political "two dimensional diamond spectrum," I don't think the left side would be weighted down. If anything, I think it would be at least a little to the right and the top. And that is probably pretty reflective of the forum membership in general.

Wow,
I would be interested in why you would even bother with the forums at all then. If your choice is to not read other peoples opinions, feel free, nobody is forcing you to do anything. Some people, me included, appreciate the effort.

BTW, how exactly is providing a link "derailing" a thread

Youre on to the conspiracy. Id say they were all freemasons but then theyd disappear me.

As far as your opinion in Bargains... if its not about the bargain then I DONT CARE what your opinion is. Thats what the other forums are for. Whats so confusing about that?

Hey, I agree I'm actually pro-choice But I have noticed a type of response to those who are anti-abortion. I value the difference in opinion and wish to foster open communication. My point is that the rules seem to be strictly enforced for one set of believes and not enforced for others.

Now before everyone labels me as some sort of Grumpy white guy with hurt feelings, relax and take a breath. I'm just stating what I have noticed, and in some cases this happens to people that I disagree with.

What is confusing about that is that a LINK is not an opinion. And I was not the person who suggested the LINK idea.
But whatever, feel free to rant about a non-issue. I simply dont agree.

Originally posted by tdirgins
I recently received an email threatening to suspend or ban me based on a comment I made....

Why are you distorting the facts? This is the mail I sent you:

Hi


Your comments (now removed) in this thread
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=229338
were in direct contradiction to my specific first
post indicating that thread was NOT the place to
discuss any views you might hold on the director.
Even though you could easily see others had been
warned you still went ahead with your post.

As a result consider this an official warning -
any further problems in the near future will result
in a seven day suspension and could lead to
an outright ban.


Regards

jonathan.e


A warning - Nothing more, with the proviso that further or repeated infractions would result in a suspension and couldthen lead to a ban.

Although the person starting the thread was discussing the amazingly low price of 70% of "Powder", and warned against commenting on Salva, I still had to say something.

I am fully aware of the debate surrounding Salva and the strength of feeling from some forum members on anything to do with him which is why I specifically requested that such views were not aired in what was/is a thread solely to let people know about a low price on his first movie. It is NOT the place to re-ignite the huge thread that already exists in the Talk forum and yet you blatantly went against my specific instructions on this.


I certainly wasn't rude in my post.

I beg to differ. You were rude to me in that you ignored not one or two but three warnings in that same thread and still you think you are being unfairly victimised.

In terms of "intererfering", I have been visiting this forum for several months and I see conversations going all over the place on some of these threads.

Then notify a Mod - Off-topic posts and threadcraps will be attended to if they are brought to our attention

Discussion is a two way street. Trying to squelch commentary goes against everything that is good about the web and smacks of censorship. If you don't agree with my views, fine. Just don't delete them.

Discussion is what this board is all about but discussion in the appropriate areas particularly where hot-button topics such as Victor Salva are concerned. If you or anyone else continues to post with such an utter disregard for the rules then you can only blame yourself when your posts are moved or deleted entirely.

Originally posted by Static Cling
With regards to tdirgins and the original topic: the issue isn't someone "agreeing (or disagreeing) with your views" on Victor Salva. The issues here are keeping discussions in the right place and ignoring forum moderators. From the very first post, jonathan.e requested that the particular thread he started stay on topic. For some reason, the two first posters to reply very knowingly went off topic. jonathan.e then made a SECOND request for posters in that particular thread to stay on topic, and yet after that you still decided to very knowingly go off topic.

Exactly.

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. To me posting

is the same thing as posting

Nice Bargain!





<font size=1>Sorry, had to say it </font>

I disagree. I think a link to another discussion can be helpful, and doesn't seem nearly as much of a threadcrap as "Don't buy this DVD, the guy is a pedophile". To me, posting a link to a discussion in a different forum is the correct compromise solution... Not that I really care, I don't buy DVDs...

You know, I never check the bargain area. I wouldn't have found out about the great price on Powder if it hadn't been for this thread. Thanks for reminding me -- I keep forgetting to pick up a copy, and now I can get it for cheap!

Is this what they mean by irony?

So just a link, you dont expect any comments on it? Especially when its off topic? So if I post a link to my feelings on abortion in a bargain thread for a movie dealing with abortion nobody will comment on it?

And HOW IS IT CENSORSHIP IF THERE ARE PERFECTLY VALID FORUMS FOR IT RIGHT HERE ON DVDTALK? Still dont agree?

Snicker Snicker (responding to off topic remark)

Hmm... In some sense I do see a bit of a uneven approch to moderation in the bargains arena.

Por ejemplo...many complaints about a particular store or bargain "place" go untouched (blockbuster sucks, bestbuy sucks, overstockc sucks...). SOmetimes these have relevence to the bargain at hand(such as shipping info, or other problems), but sometimes they are just threadcrap.

I suppose that interjections about good or bad movies also slip by the mods...but when "X director is a shmuck who rapes little kids" is mentioned, that pretty much guarantees some attention.

I remember a few Overstock posts where the quality of the movies that they were offering was discussed in order to determine whether a particular DVD was a "bargain" or not. In this sense maybe for some, a particular DVD would not be a bargain if the director was a child molester. It certainly wouldn't be for me.

Unfortunately, mods can't read every post and catch everything. That's what the Report this post to a moderator link is for.

Distorting the facts? I'm not sure how a "threat" or a "warning" are different. You conveniently failed to mention your other post directed at me:

Did you feel the need to flex your moderator muscles at my expense?

Clearly this thread has created a very heated discussion.

By the way, if you were aware of the Salva controversy, why did you start the thread in the first place? Apparently you have no problem supporting the director.