Forum Feedback and Support Post forum feedback and related problems, here.

Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Old 07-02-18, 08:47 AM
  #76  
Moderator
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hope.
Posts: 8,672
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by kefrank View Post
I've been reminded recently of a former co-worker of mine.
He sounds like he uses the same tactics that people who troll do, including here. They troll and troll and troll, breaking forum rules yet seldom in a way that people can pinpoint in specific instances. When one attempts to do so, the troll points out they can say "what" they want because we need many viewpoints, leaving out the "how" of negative energy and "why" of pushing people's buttons on purpose (which is the definition of trolling).

Then they troll so much people lose their temper and lash out, saying things they shouldn't. And because those posts are more blatant than the negative culture the troll is creating, those people who respond get in trouble or they get fed up and leave. The troll is the victim. Over and over again.

Meanwhile, the forum grows smaller, angrier, and less worth the time and energy to be meaningful.

It's like Walter in The Big Lebowski. He trolls The Dude then when Dude get worked up, what's his response? "Calmer than you are."



That's EXACTLY what we have going on around here. I think about this scene at least once a day when I'm at DVDTalk. It's really unfortunate.

A true troll's work is the panoply of posts, rarely individual posts itself, so people who can do something about it are left scratching their heads as to what to do.

It's hard to ban someone who intentionally creates negativity on a daily basis. It's easy to ban someone who posts, "Fuck off!" once. At least, it is until the powers that be decide enough is enough and act.
story is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 10:31 AM
  #77  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 20,152
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Going to keep this brief.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Then you're also in agreement that JasonF intentionally and repeatedly lied about me, correct?
If JasonF did so, then sure. I honestly haven't looked at his posts that explicitly said it, but for the sake of not spending hours on this, I'll believe you.

How about your demonstrating how it's done as an example of "good faith" to show that you apply standards equally? That's fair and easy enough to do...right?
ANYONE, including JasonF, who said that you explicitly called black people apes should apologize. Full-stop. There's no need to lie, when the truth (that you spent a not-insignificant amount of time defending the use of the term, towards black people, in some cases) is IMO pretty close to being as bad, but semantically, not the same thing. Much like people posting about how it's OK to steal music and movies online because they wouldn't have paid for it anyway enables impressionable young minds to go and start stealing music and movies online. (I'm trying to draw a parallel to how people are affected by others' speech, and didn't want to go to something extreme like genocide to make my point).

If you really want me to address the spoilerized part (and I'm purposely using neutral words), I'll be happy to do it via PM as I offered to before.
I'll be happy to respond here, but it will be a brief and curt response to the point.
Feel free to do it here or via PM, but keep it curt and to the point regardless. I'm not (currently) interested in a long-form discussion via PM with you or anyone on this forum. I have my reasons, and I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
And you'll never admit that you lied, either, even though one of your buddies acknowledged that fact.
^This was in reply to JasonF, but assuming the "buddy" is me, I've had far less interaction with JasonF than I have had with you. I was pretty sure you had mentioned previously the fact that you were engaging in regular off-site (or at least PM) conversation with a few of your like-minded forum members, laughing about drama or whatever. That's why I used the word "buddies" earlier. My apologies if this was taken the wrong way, but just found it strange that you're now using the word buddy or buddies both in and out of scare quotes.

But MORE IMPORTANTLY, if JasonF did lie, as you say he did, then he should apologize for it. Since I believe you when you say he lied, then yes, he should apologize. Anyone who said it should be given a chance to clarify that that's not what you said. Maybe you should put "I did not call black people apes." in your sig for a bit. I'm joking with that last bit, but I don't know what exactly you want to see happen.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
a few have suggested "nuking" the forum. They'd rather see the forum be razed to the ground rather than "tolerate" dissenting views. And this is supposed to represent "anti-fascism"?
I believe I was the only one who used this terminology. Want a reminder where? I can't quote the post because it's in a locked thread, but here's what I said, back in September:
"Maybe nuking this sub forum is best. I kid... but... damn. The top 4-5 threads are just more of the same right now.
I had some lengthier posts I wanted to make (some in response to you, Troy, all in good um, faith) but for the last week or so, anything of any actual quality (not saying MY posts are of any quality, of course!) is buried between snarky bullshit, memes, and YouTube videos used as responses by folks who "don't resort to name calling." It's a mess. I'd prefer to read more interesting conversations, like you, but this currently isn't the place for that to happen.
"

This was not a comment about seeing the forum killed-off because of "dissenting views." It was because of the stupid bullshit everyone was partaking in. Some folks are still doing it regularly, some have toned it down. It is what it is, but it's only a lock of hair better than your average reddit or 4 chan subforum. "Trying to derail the discussion" is a fairly easy (I would think) thing to determine, but hard to moderate in particular. I don't know if there's even a solution to it, which is why I made the "maybe nuking the sub forum is best" comment. The fact that the Politics sub forum is likely one of the most active... on a site dedicated to DVDs and movies... is really strange. It's why it's best to sometimes take a step back and not take it all too seriously anyway... which probably helps to feed the derail-trolls. I've taken some not-so-subtle advice from the mods and admins to heart, about a few things here. A recent comment by one of them, directed at you, creek, might be worth taking to heart as well, irregardless of the "facts" about how the discourse goes on here.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 10:33 AM
  #78  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,524
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

As I posted earlier, its essentially the forum version of reds only flagging those that finally respond to infractions that had benn going all game long.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 10:52 AM
  #79  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 20,152
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I'm not going to bother to refute creekdipper's massive defense of the time he argued that it's not necessarily racist to call black people apes, or however he wants to characterize it. I linked to the discussion; people can read it for themselves and decide.
I agree with you here. If, as he said before, you claimed he explicitly called black people apes, then I think that point is worth refuting (or apologizing, as the case may be), but in the end, the distinction and semantics of it isn't a whole lot better. As I said in my post above, it's like posting that it's totally okay to steal movies and music online, even if you yourself don't do it*, because impressionable minds may (and probably will) start doing it.
The overall, summarized in one simple sentence, but not exact what was said, "NO, I did not and would not call black people apes, but here's a perfectly reasonable scenario in which it would not be racist to do so." is of little difference to onlookers who just want to find an reason, expressed by someone else, to call black people apes. It's especially disappointing (and yes, gaslighting) to do so and follow it up by saying, by the way, it's no big deal and just a mental exercise. Ugh.

To everyone, my thought is:
Say what you want to say however you want to say it, think what you want to think however you want to think it, that's freedom of speech/thought and all that. But recognize that you have an audience, and consider HOW you go about signal-boosting certain ideas. If that changes the way you conduct yourself, so be it. If it doesn't, fine. Just consider it.


Anyway, it's all a mess. Nuke the forum! (<- a joke)

*I didn't make that distinction in the post above, but it thought I should here. Whether you do or don't steal movies and music online doesn't matter. If you signal-boost the idea that it's totally okay to do it (a victimless crime, so to speak), then don't be surprised if people start doing it because they got just the right amount of false justification that they need. Maybe not a great analogy, but as I said before, I didn't want to use an extreme comparison. Something more relatable.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 12:09 PM
  #80  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Why So Blu?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 30,354
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by story View Post
He sounds like he uses the same tactics that people who troll do, including here. They troll and troll and troll, breaking forum rules yet seldom in a way that people can pinpoint in specific instances. When one attempts to do so, the troll points out they can say "what" they want because we need many viewpoints, leaving out the "how" of negative energy and "why" of pushing people's buttons on purpose (which is the definition of trolling).

Then they troll so much people lose their temper and lash out, saying things they shouldn't. And because those posts are more blatant than the negative culture the troll is creating, those people who respond get in trouble or they get fed up and leave. The troll is the victim. Over and over again.

Meanwhile, the forum grows smaller, angrier, and less worth the time and energy to be meaningful.

It's like Walter in The Big Lebowski. He trolls The Dude then when Dude get worked up, what's his response? "Calmer than you are."



That's EXACTLY what we have going on around here. I think about this scene at least once a day when I'm at DVDTalk. It's really unfortunate.

A true troll's work is the panoply of posts, rarely individual posts itself, so people who can do something about it are left scratching their heads as to what to do.

It's hard to ban someone who intentionally creates negativity on a daily basis. It's easy to ban someone who posts, "Fuck off!" once. At least, it is until the powers that be decide enough is enough and act.
Like that Family Belongs Together thread in the religion and politics section. If the responses to the OP weren't trolling then you could have fooled me.
Why So Blu? is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 12:58 PM
  #81  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,460
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
ANYONE, including JasonF, who said that you explicitly called black people apes should apologize.
I've never intentionally mischaracterized what creekdipper, or anyone else, has said. I am 100% positive there are times when I have inadvertently done so. Perhaps this was one of those times. I don't know whether I ever explicitly said "creekdipper calls black people apes." I don't think I would have said that, but I may well have said he posted a defense of calling black people apes.

Regardless, at the time, I certainly didn't go back and reread the thread to make sure I was understanding the exact nuances of what he said -- as you note, what he said was vile, and I wasn't going to lose a lot of sleep counting angels on the head of a pin.

But if anyone was misled by the way I characterized his posts, I apologize. And I apologize to anyone on this forum who made a post in good faith and had that post mischaracterized by me.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 01:03 PM
  #82  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 20,152
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I've never intentionally mischaracterized what creekdipper, or anyone else, has said. I am 100% positive I have inadvertently done so.
Yeah, I was going to parse the "repeatedly" and the "intentionally" since I do think there's an important distinction, but for the sake of moving forward, I didn't want to get into it. I tend to write too much as it is.
Regardless
Dan is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 05:01 PM
  #83  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Yeah, I was going to parse the "repeatedly" and the "intentionally" since I do think there's an important distinction, but for the sake of moving forward, I didn't want to get into it. I tend to write too much as it is.
Regardless
[I just deleted a paragraph devoted to dis cussing the nature of sincere apologies connected in light of histories of a variety of very specific, undeniable words used in a series of instances but felt it just continued the litany of recriminations and accusations that only perpetuate the problems on a personal level. See bracketed note below.]

[Another paragraph deleted as olive branch gesture.]

[At this point it might be good for mods to indicate whether any of us should be using the feedback forum to be whaling on specific members by name and, in effect, turning a venue for discussing general issues into a personal grudge match. Just asking for everyone.]

I personally never expected a direct, personal apology nor cared if one was ever forthcoming, although it would represent a positive change in the right direction.

Similarly, it would be nice if people would apply the same standards universally. When members commit dozens of perceived or actual infractions such as trolling or threadcrapping...which, although subjective judgments, occur with great frequency...and those are ignored while a single technical infraction is noted...that suggests that the concern lies less with the infraction than which person commits the infraction.

Reading many of the complaints, it seems clear that perception is being confused with reality. That version seems to be "If I find something to be offensive, it must be offensive." Lost in that view is the fact that each of us could say exactly the same thing. Meanwhile, actual, indisputable violations are waved off and excused as " understandable" responses.

That's not a healthy, civilized attitude. We can each absolutely believe that we are 100% right on an issue...but that doesn't justify vigilante approaches or hypocritical application of rules for "our side" and "their side."

It might be a good start if we would acknowledge that others find our own views to be just as reprehensible as we find theirs.

Last edited by creekdipper; 07-02-18 at 06:07 PM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 06:02 PM
  #84  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

To Dan:

I have no idea what "gaslighting" is outside of the Bergman/Boyer film but can guess the definition of "signal-boosting." And I've never found " " to be scary.

I do, however, completely understand the meanings of false equivalencies, rhetorical spin, and word-parsing.

All our discussions here are mental exercises. Unless someone here is an elected official, these discussions have zero effect upon public policy if we are to believe the frequent opinion stated that no one ever changes his/her mind on any substantive issue as a result of these chats. Yet we continue to debate year after year. To what end? Why would one find the exchange of ideas to be so distasteful that it elicits an "Ugh" response?

False equivalency, spin, and good faith discussions:

When choosing analogies, an honest approach is to match comparisons as closely as possible to avoid unfair comparisons. For instance, unless one is prepared to show examples in which stealing music is justifiable, one shouldn't pick that example to use in an unequivalent way. In fact, someone just talked about that technique in a post above unless I'm mistaken.

When an absolutist position is staked out and someone dissents from that view even while acknowledging that the view is accurate the vast majority of the time, it's disingenuous to label stating the truth to be "signal-boosting." If we have seen anything in this forum over the years in most threads, it's that people will interpret statements in any way to which they are predisposed...no "signal" needed. To say, "Well, we can't acknowledge the truth because someone might misuse it" is a dangerous precedent to set. It suggests that we must conceal the truth or even lie because others don't have our intelligence or powers of perception. Do we want our leaders and our news media to employ that approach?

If you think that suggesting that a black person telling another black person who is assaulting a young black woman "Get off her, you big ape!" might be motivated be something other than racism is "almost as bad" (IYO) as an other-raced person actually calling a black person an "ape" out of the blue...then we'll never agree on anything.

To wit: Any racist already predisposed to use racial epithets doesn't need obscure exceptions to the clearly-stated rules in order to engage in their racism. And when we can 100% agree upon the overall rIle but cannot also oppose the absolutist position without calling each other "bigots" for speaking the truth, we see why we have a thread titled "We are a nation of cowards re: discussing race issues." Because the ideological purists will brook no variation from their position. As I just read in today's John Stossel column quoting an author and campus speaker who has had her talks interrupted even though her views are extremely sympathetic toward minorities, the "anti-fascists" employ fascist tactics to shut down speech...even from ideological allies...because the speech doesn't meet the standards of the protesters.

I also just read an excellent piece in the current issue of Time magazine about how a group representing a wide variety of opinions on gun control had to actively train themselves to listen to others and set aside their biases, epithets, and assumptions about others. And what they learned as a result even when still embracing their previous views.

Last edited by creekdipper; 07-02-18 at 09:20 PM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 10:19 PM
  #85  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,485
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

David Simon wrote this, and it might be relevant to what posters here are saying:


EinCB is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 12:27 AM
  #86  
Moderator
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hope.
Posts: 8,672
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Yep, that's a big part of it.
story is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 02:39 AM
  #87  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by story View Post
Yep, that's a big part of it.
Especially the part about slander, although I think he meant "libel" if being technical.

Regardless, Simon demonstrates a tendency which Thomas Sowell calls "the vision of the anointed" in his book by the same name. Because Simon feels that he has the moral high ground, he feels justified in breaking the rules of civility to which he agreed and to engage in personal attacks. He could have chosen to try to use his considerable intellect and rhetorical skills to persuade, cajole, or to at least demonstrate the correctness of his views. Instead, he took the low road...largely because ( according to him) he disagreed with others on immigration policy, including whether illegal immigrants should be thought of as "criminals." Because he felt right in his own stance...no problem with that...he seems to feel that the rules shouldn't apply to him and that his insults were justified.

And, to paraphrase another, that double standard is a big part of the problem. People make judgments along partisan lines; therefore, a harsh comment, slice of ridicule, sweeping generalization, or personal attack is "righteous" if in the service if the right cause. In that case, rules are meant to be broken. and a direct assault upon the character of others is "truth" and represents positive negative energy. Repeatedly entering threads with comments that attack that interrupt healthy, sincere debates for the sole purpose of disruption...and often "stalking" the same members...is not only tolerated but encouraged as "righteous" behavior.

And the underlying attitude is that a purging of opposing views deemed unacceptable by some is the rationale for applying the double standard (and to go further). In this view, the ends justify the means, although it is doubtful that those advocates would support such actions applied to themselves. Then again, maybe they would, since the order of the day seems to be to issue ultimatums to the owners re: other views/members: "Either they go or I go."

Doesn't sound very open-minded or "positive," does it?

An independent and objective look at time stamps and posting histories would yield some embarrassing results for those who most frequently reach for the "troll" label to apply to others (no doubt, such personal dehumanizing and demonizing is a "positive" thing when wielded "in the name of what is right").

If those posters want the site owners to declare an "authorizrd" side which will be the only viewpoint accepted, let them say so. But if having to tolerate other views causes such distress, perhaps it would be better for them (and the forum) to find a forum better tailored to their own views.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 07:00 AM
  #88  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Perhaps the most pertinent question was raised by a member above: What exactly do users want from this site?

1. A reset in which everyone agrees to act more civilly and recognize that all viewpoints...even our own...will be found offensive to some others.

2. A venue only for our own views to be tolerated.

3. A place where the same standards apply equally to all.

4. A place where people listen to each other and then respond in spirited but respectful fashion, addressing the ideas rather than the poster.

5. Other (please specify.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 07:20 AM
  #89  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
gryffinmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ancient City
Posts: 6,538
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
If those posters want the site owners to declare an "authorizrd" side which will be the only viewpoint accepted, let them say so. But if having to tolerate other views causes such distress, perhaps it would be better for them (and the forum) to find a forum better tailored to their own views.
Not all viewpoints are created equal, nor should they be treated as such.

Your logic opens the forum up to very dangerous and ugly sides of human opinion, from racial supremacy to religious zealotry, and for those to perpetuate and be tolerated.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting those elements in the community.
gryffinmaster is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 07:38 AM
  #90  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,524
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

^^^ But without racism and other forms of bigotry, the place would turn into an echo chamber. /s

You know what types of people atrempt to paint their bigotry as valid topics of debate? Pieces of shit like Milo Y.

Last edited by hdnmickey; 07-03-18 at 08:52 AM.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 08:22 AM
  #91  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Why So Blu?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 30,354
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

In retrospect, I do think it's somewhat ironic that that signature would be used considering it's taken from Starship Trooopers - the satire that showcases fascism and militarism in all its glory.

Why So Blu? is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 08:35 AM
  #92  
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
 
Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: spiritually, Minnesota
Posts: 34,616
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by gryffinmaster View Post
Not all viewpoints are created equal, nor should they be treated as such.

Your logic opens the forum up to very dangerous and ugly sides of human opinion, from racial supremacy to religious zealotry, and for those to perpetuate and be tolerated.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting those elements in the community.
This.
Trevor is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 09:00 AM
  #93  
Moderator
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hope.
Posts: 8,672
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
This.
Yep. Focusing on "what" is said to justify its existence instead of examine the "how" its said (or comes off) and the "why" of it being said in the first place (pushing buttons on purpose) is a great way to troll. Not only does the person trolling get to say what they want, how they say it and why they say it become so minimized that they just get away with what they say over and over.
story is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 10:01 AM
  #94  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 521
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Guys, while we're still sorting out the politics forum with the mods, I want to state this: The site is called DVDTalk. Despite being an out-of-date medium (although I'm hoping for a retro return, like VHS), the primary use of this site should be to talk about movies. The political forum is a nice bonus.

There are members who have made their last 200 posts in the politics forum. Those people should re-evaluate how they use the site. We like that you're engaged, but the site is made to be engaged about movies (or TV, music, comics). You've got opinions, so tell people what you thought about Jurassic World! Or The latest Criterion releases!
IBJoel is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 10:44 AM
  #95  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 18,991
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Is "sweeping this under the rug" a really good way of handling the situation? Despite how this site was started by Geoff 19 years ago, it has long since evolved (or devolved) past that initial framework. You can't put the "Reel.com has 3 DVDs for $1/DIVX IS DEAD" Genie back in the bottle.
Hokeyboy is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 10:49 AM
  #96  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
covenant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,899
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by IBJoel View Post
Guys, while we're still sorting out the politics forum with the mods, I want to state this: The site is called DVDTalk. Despite being an out-of-date medium (although I'm hoping for a retro return, like VHS), the primary use of this site should be to talk about movies. The political forum is a nice bonus.

There are members who have made their last 200 posts in the politics forum. Those people should re-evaluate how they use the site. We like that you're engaged, but the site is made to be engaged about movies (or TV, music, comics). You've got opinions, so tell people what you thought about Jurassic World! Or The latest Criterion releases!
Just close the politics forum and put the focus back on entertainment. Problem solved.
covenant is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 11:05 AM
  #97  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,783
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

^ But that would lose 5 members!
Kurt D is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 11:05 AM
  #98  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,524
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by story View Post
Yep. Focusing on "what" is said to justify its existence instead of examine the "how" its said (or comes off) and the "why" of it being said in the first place (pushing buttons on purpose) is a great way to troll. Not only does the person trolling get to say what they want, how they say it and why they say it become so minimized that they just get away with what they say over and over.

It's the new MO for people like Milo. Spread the hate, and when people refuse to allow you to use their forum to spread more hate, play the victim card.

Last edited by hdnmickey; 07-03-18 at 11:14 AM.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 11:19 AM
  #99  
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
 
Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: spiritually, Minnesota
Posts: 34,616
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by covenant View Post
Just close the politics forum and put the focus back on entertainment. Problem solved.
Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
^ But that would lose 5 members!
Might be closer to the reverse.

Would anyone even bother with DVDTalk if it was just media and entertainment?
Trevor is offline  
Old 07-03-18, 11:21 AM
  #100  
DVD Talk Hero
 
davidh777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Home of 2013 NFL champion Seahawks
Posts: 41,628
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

So the mods are telling us to not come here and discuss stuff? Because we haven't lost enough people already?
davidh777 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.