You too. -kd5-

Here's a tip, chief. You don't have to go back and read the entire thread from the beginning. But it's not unreasonable to go back and read the most recent page or two of posts in the thread. That way you have some idea of what's already been said and you're not posting in ignorance.

What's funny is that there's already been at least three times as much wasted space arguing about and mocking the "offending" post than the original thing itself took up.

Here's Gandalf doing the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air to cheer all you grumpy gills up:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V1HSNV9y25A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

By going to the last page in a thread and reading back a few pages. I do it all the time.

All the time, yes.

I've made plenty of mistakes, some of which were on this forum. The difference is that I own the mistake and move on, instead of getting incredibly defensive about it.

One short 300 page book (The Hobbit) doesn't mean that it cant be adapted into three movies just as one book of three parts of over 1000 pages (Lord of the Rings books).
The Hobbit is about a quest of a dude walking to a mountain.
The Lord of the Rings is about a quest of a dude walking to a volcano.
The movie versions have every right to have the same length.

If Peter Jackson wanted, the Hobbit could be turned into 6 movies and it would probably still be a great movie adaptation.



ahhh, it's no big deal. There's never been a time in the history of internet forums where people don't always read back a couple pages. It's not a big deal and it's not worth scolding anyone for that. It's not rude and it's not forum etiquette. It's just meaningless whether people do that or not. If you scold someone on the internet, don't be surprised to be scolded back and then before you know it, you are in the middle of a pointless, catty, cliched internet argument!

Thanks for being the voice of reason toddly.


For the record, I don't typically have the time nor the inclination to read back lord knows how many pages to see whether something I want to say may be in error. I apologize for taking issue with being called out on said error but I refuse to apologize for not doing what you people claim I need to do before I make a simple comment in a thread. I said Ooops! once, I won't say it again. -kd5-

You should feel ashamed. The internet is serious business.

-kd5-

To be clear, I wasn't chiding him, I was correcting him, as well as giving credit where credit is due to the people that originally provided the info in the thread. Everyone makes mistakes.

Two.

If you refuse to read back even a little bit in a thread before placing comments in it, be prepared to say "ooops" many more times.

I don't get it heh.

I'm with you. I might read back a page or two, but not always. When I go into a thread blind, I usually preface my post with "I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has already been discussed, but..."

pinata242 posted the confirmed news of a third film 20 posts before you did. So while kd5 was guilty of not reading around 50 recent posts before posting, you were guilty of not reading 20 previous posts prior to repeating the news.

At least you apologize in advance. Not catching up in a thread before posting isn't a grave offense or anything, but don't be surprised if you end up being corrected for out-of-date information, and definitely don't get super defensive about it.

oh sh*t lol.

If everyone continues "sharing" their personal opinion about meaningless internet forum behavior like Real Housewives of DVDTalk for three more thread pages, then it looks like everyone is going to have to scroll back to earlier pages to know what the Hobbit topic was!

This just in: according to The Sun Daily, The Hobbit will be three films:
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/453219


In all seriousness, the article has some new quotes.

Another article, in defense of trilogizing The Hobbit:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...hobbit/260648/

People are still going on about it? Sheesh...most useless and off-topic page of posts ever.

SO, The Hobbit. It's pretty clear at this point that Jackson's movie trilogy will expand the story way beyond Bilbo's journey in the book. That could be a good thing in many ways, but then I remember the changes and additions that were made to the story in LOTR and get worried. They did a great job of condensing the story for the most part, but the weird and often unnecessary departures remain the weakest parts of those films in my opinion.

Alright..so educate me. I know Tom Babadil (sp?) is a joke and I smile about it cuz I know it is..but..how much of that guy was in these books?

Tom Bababooey threw out the worst opening pitch in MLB history.

I wouldn't apologize. It seems to me, Jay G keeps an eye open for mistakes on these boards and likes to correct a poster. He's done it to me a few times. I'm not saying it's malicious, but he does appear to want everyone "to own the mistake" as he said. Sure, it helps to be up to speed on a topic but it's silly to slam someone for not doing research and forum searches before making a comment, but to each their own.

I do tend to post corrections for factual errors that I see. I do so under the (perhaps mistaken) belief that I'm being helpful. kd5, for example, still thought it only a rumor that the film was split into three films. Since he's apparently too busy to read back in a thread, wasn't it helpful that I corrected his misconception? What would've been the proper response to his post?

As for "owning the mistake," either apologize for the mistake or not, I don't care. Just don't go defending the mistake like it's everyone else's problem, not yours. It didn't help that kd5 repeatedly tried to characterize his mistake as a case of other people wanting him to read "1300+ posts," when the reality was that the news was only a few dozen posts previous.

Finally, I don't think I "slammed" kd5 in my posts. I corrected an error in his initial post, then corrected a misimpression of the error when he replied back. I didn't really chastise him besides pointing out that if he doesn't read up on a thread, don't be surprised when people correct his ignorance.


And now I'm stuck trying to figure out what corrected I corrected Pizza on that's stuck in his craw for so long.

You could've just said "Oh, it has been confirmed that it's being split into three movies" and left it at that. I think posting the exact post number makes you look like a nerd and makes it look like you are being extremely anal about the whole thing.

I didn't post the exact post numbers, at first. I originally just quoted the two posts that first provided the news, and provided the PJ quote.

It wasn't until kd5 brought up the number of posts preceeding his, 1380, that I provided the post numbers to show how close the relevant posts were to his.

Tom Bombadil, along with his wife Goldberry, was in one early chapter of "The Fellowship of the Ring." The hobbits ran into him.

He is, on the surface, a rather silly character and seems to have been included because he was based on one of Tolkien's daughter's dolls.

But Bombadil also has an air of mystery about him because he is seemingly immune to the power of the Ring, and there are implications that he may be a manifestation of God (Eru?) or nature itself.

Like Beorn in The Hobbit, only he's meaner.

Thanks for the apology and owning up to your mistake.

And congratulations on your 10,000th post.