So boot him, ban him, suspend him, whatever. To harp on "Watch the name calling. We suspend for those kinds of personal attacks", then stick a personal attack in the usertitle is hypocritical. At least if an argument/namecalling is in a thread, there can be the opportunity for a counterargument; this is sort of like a drive by, there is really no venue for a response (legitimate or not). Obviously it doesn't "never" happen. They're DVDT's rules, everyone needs to play by them, including the enforcers. I realize that mods/admins have additional power and responsibility, and sometimes have a little fun with that; but it's usually not quite so blatantly hypocritical as in this scenario. "Watch out, don't call names (in a thread with 579 views), or we'll suspend you; oh, but we can call names in someones profile which is potentially seen by many more users."
(I am admittedly assuming a mod/admin changed the OP's usertitle. If I am incorrect, please correct me and I will gladly retract my comments.)

Oh, and I don't think it's a "fight", I was just using that phrase to say I'm not really on anyone's side--the OP is rather aggressive and rude, but hey, it's not like that's a first here (though it occurs less here than other places), and I haven't even read the review he's complaining about. I'm just concerned by the "do as I say, not as I do" perspective that is apparently accepted. If someone's a real jackass, shouldn't we either just ignore him or suspend him, rather than lowering ourselves to his level?

As the creator of this thread, I thought I'd chime in once more as I just checked it out again this evening after it got moved to a different area.

First of all, I can definitely take criticism and I read every person's comments (mostly negative against me) and that's all fine and thanks for the counter-attack. I do agree that my rant was a bit overboard and the personal comments against Mr. Putzer were totally uncalled for. So the negative reviews against my negative comments are completely justified and welcome. That's all good.

My opinions on the reviews in general were completely honest, though. That's how I genuinely felt from reading a bunch of recent reviews on DVD-Talk, usually in the vintage cult-horror genre. Freedom of speech and all that - I just need to work on delivering it in a more civilized and cordial way sometimes. In fact, DVD-Talk is always the first forum I check out whenever I need to see the latest news and discussions about DVD's. Before any other site. It's a great source of information and the people posting here are as smart as they get. The reviews are a bit hit-and-miss for me, but there are some really good reviewers here so I never meant to slander the entire group of reviewers. I apologize to all the reviewers, including Mr. Putzer, as well as staff and admins, for taking out my vitrioloc frustration this way. Nothing is perfect in this world, including me, so hopefully we can all get back to a more positive outlook on everything. I know I'll try.

In any event, I missed the whole "nimrod" situation. If I was labeled a nimrod earlier, so be it. Higher career aspirations are in my future. Peace, hopefully.

A diplomatic end to this thread? Refund!

I never understood why some people get so uptight about a specific review or reviewer. If you find that a reviewer doesn't cater to your tastes or needs, then read someone else's reviews...

This of course, does not imply that there shouldn't be reviewing standards which I'm sure DVDTalk certainly has considering the overall quality of the reviews. But reviewing isn't an exact science. And I'm not familiar with the way this site operates when it comes to attributing films to reviewers (I would assume they try to cater to each reviewer's tastes/strengths), but no system is perfect. For the site I review for, we regularly need to cleanup the "unwanted pile", which means that once in a while, reviewers might end up with a film in a genre they are not that familiar with. And even with some research, you're not going to satisfy hardcore fans who have seen some obscure film 50 times and can recite all the dialogue by heart. :)

I'm eagerly anticipating the sequel to this thread:

XCritic Reviewers - what credentials do these people have?

Now that is a discussion that could prove to be an amusing read.

If you must insult me (and there's no reason to), at least get the last name right.

Too much effort.

Anyway, it wasn't meant to be an insult, I just meant that i thought it was going to be about you based on the thread title and the other flak you took.

Of course historically nimrod means 'rebel' and 'mighty hunter,' so you should feel honored!

I hardly ever get feedback on my reviews, a lot of which are cult-horror, so I invite you (and everyone) who wants to compliment or trash what I have to say, please do!

Kudos ...

At least he didn't totally massacre it by saying something like Porndork... :scratch2:

You're insulting my Alma Matta.

Did you generate your degree off a website, too?

They didn't have websites when I generated mine.

Did they have electricity?

And what is with your Join Date? 1987?

My bad. Back then, they had monks hand copy the diplomas.

http://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/bert.gif

= J

^Seems you know a bit about obscure movies.

What do you mean "these people"?

What do you mean these people?

I rest my case.

Well, I don't think this will be very "amusing"...but here goes: I have a BA in Telecommunication and English Literature from the University of Alabama. I conduct legal research and draft legal documents for a living. Writing a decent porn review is not as easy as some may think. There's the overview of the action, descriptions of the actors,videography, editing, sound, picture quality, music score, etc. I'm also always on the lookout for unintentional hilarious dialogue and non-sexual aspects such as set furnishings (late 1960s/early 1970s movies are great for this) and outdoor footage. Many of the Central European movies from Bel Ami studios have beautiful shots of villages, mountains, etc.

Looking at my initial post again, though it wasn't meant to be incendiary, I can certainly see why it might have ruffled your feathers a bit. It was meant to be interpreted in another manner entirely, certainly off-the-cuff and innocuous, and not as a slight against the folks who review stuff for XCritic.

No problem! :)

Did you catch "The Cleaner" this week? To paraphrase:

- Did you ever think about going to college?

- No, I was a crack addict. My entire college experience was dictated by my dad's copy of 'Girls of the PAC-10'. I applied to all of those schools.

- Did you get into any?

- Oddly enough, I did get into Arizona State.