Further to watching 'The Silurians'
Keith Topping
Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
--
Keith === Net Day 362
David J. A. Lewis
Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk (Keith Topping) wrote:
>
>Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>
A one part man. OOEerrrrr (snigger)
--
Dai
I loathe bus stations, terrible places,
full of lost luggage and lost souls.
William Thompson
Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<847964...@tooon.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper
bag!
>
This is a troll.
I guess there are those who feel that way though.
These are my thoughts, Jon Pertwee was my favorite Doctor.
I think was fine actor, his portrayal is the one I remember
as the finest!
Anyway, my first post to this group was right after his
untimely death, and that was in response to some jerk who
was celebrating his death by singing Zippity-do-da!
Please, people! Must we spit on his grave?
--
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
_n_ | Bill Thompson | "Goodbye! Its good, isn't it. Hmm?" |
===== |wat...@misnet.com | -Tom Baker, The Baker Years- |
|#|#| |------------------------------------------------------------|
|L|L| |"Running windoz95 on an Intel PC is not unlike tying your |
|L|L| |shoe laces every morning before you go to work, and once a |
|L|L| |week your shoe explodes." -David Stiller, alt.flame(11/7/96)|
===== +------------------------------------------------------------+
Disclaimer: No unsolicited commercial e-mail wanted! Thank you.
Jeri Massi
"William Thompson" <wat...@mail.misnet.com> wrote:
>Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><847964...@tooon.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper
>bag!
>>
>This is a troll.
>I guess there are those who feel that way though.
>These are my thoughts, Jon Pertwee was my favorite Doctor.
>I think was fine actor, his portrayal is the one I remember
>as the finest!
>Anyway, my first post to this group was right after his
>untimely death, and that was in response to some jerk who
>was celebrating his death by singing Zippity-do-da!
>Please, people! Must we spit on his grave?
Oh, William, it is just troll. Don't worry about it. Pertwee was my
favorite doctor (as anybody viewing my web page can easily tell), and
he was an excellent voice actor, a super story teller, and a
gentleman. I've had my tribute to him posted at my web site ever
since his death, and about two dozen people have written to me about
it, sharing with me their recollections of him and what a great man he
was. After reading their heartfelt tributes I'm more convinced than
ever that we all benefitted from his work in DW. Please don't let
this tripe bother you. Pertwee was great; he made a great
contribution to a lot of people's lives, and in all his success he
tried to uphold a certain standard of conduct as a professional and as
a gentleman. Nothing that some kid weenie says online can affect any
of that.
Jeri
jer...@usa.pipeline.com
*********************************************************8
Check out my web page to read more:
http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jeriwho/index.html
And don't forget: KNIGHTLY: INFLUX OF THE ARRAY
comes out this month. Two hour audio drama in stereo
with sound effects from the BBC and cool original music.
Released by GOLD CUFF PUBLICATIONS. My web page has details!
Jeffery Beuck
Keith Topping (Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
And Mr. Topping goes into my killfile ... like so ...
BLOOP!
--
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Jeff Beuck jbe...@kent.edu
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
John Long
Keith Topping wrote:
>
> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>
> Keith === Net Day 362
hey now -- that's my favorite doctor you're talking about
if there's one thing Pertwee is good at - it's acting
Now if we're going to bash a doctor - it must always be McCoy
learn this rule
john long
Jeri Massi
jbe...@kent.kent.edu (Jeffery Beuck) wrote:
>Keith Topping (Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>And Mr. Topping goes into my killfile ... like so ...
>BLOOP!
>--
Wow, Jeff, my kill file doesn't go "bloop" when I drop things into it.
What software are you using?
William Thompson
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<56g7i1$c...@camel1.mindspring.com>...
(stupid troll snipped)
(My response, snipped)
> Oh, William, it is just troll. Don't worry about it. Pertwee was my
> favorite doctor (as anybody viewing my web page can easily tell), and
> he was an excellent voice actor, a super story teller, and a
> gentleman. I've had my tribute to him posted at my web site ever
> since his death, and about two dozen people have written to me about
> it, sharing with me their recollections of him and what a great man he
> was. After reading their heartfelt tributes I'm more convinced than
> ever that we all benefitted from his work in DW. Please don't let
> this tripe bother you. Pertwee was great; he made a great
> contribution to a lot of people's lives, and in all his success he
> tried to uphold a certain standard of conduct as a professional and as
> a gentleman. Nothing that some kid weenie says online can affect any
> of that.
>
Thank you.
--
Bill Thompson +-----------------------------------------+
wat...@misnet.com | No unsolicited comercial e-mail, please.|
---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Jonathan Blum
In article <328BEF...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>Keith Topping wrote:
>> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>hey now -- that's my favorite doctor you're talking about
>if there's one thing Pertwee is good at - it's acting
>Now if we're going to bash a doctor - it must always be McCoy
>learn this rule
"Hey! Children..."
--The Master, to the bickering Doctor and Grace, in the ambulance
(telemovie script, cut from finished movie)
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Jean-Paul C. Samson
On 11/13/96, Keith Topping wrote:
>Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper
>bag!
Are you sure you're not Paul Cornell?
--
-===================================================================-
Jean-Paul C. Samson -=- jsa...@istar.ca -=- NeXTmail & MIME welcome
-============- http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jeanpaul/ -=============-
-===================================================================-
Leviathan
In article <847964...@tooon.demon.co.uk>, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk says...
>
>
>Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
No, he wasn't.
>I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
Yes, he could.
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@ultranet.com
"I ain't gonna pay no dollar for a corn muffin that's half-dough!"
-- Kevin Kling
Keith Topping
In article <56gop9$3...@news.istar.ca>
jsa...@istar.ca "Jean-Paul C. Samson" writes:
> Are you sure you're not Paul Cornell?
Fairly positive.
--
Keith === Net Day 363
Keith Topping
In article <01bbd23c$e123a160$LocalHost@wathomp>
wat...@mail.misnet.com "William Thompson" writes:
>> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
> This is a troll.
'course it was y'great wazzock!
way does *everybody* on this thing assume that everyone else is being
100% serious *all the time*???
Keith Topping
In article <56g7i1$c...@camel1.mindspring.com>
jer...@pipeline.com "Jeri Massi" writes:
> Nothing that some kid weenie says online can affect any of that.
some *what*????!
R.J. Smith
In article <847964...@tooon.demon.co.uk>,
Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
My thoughts exactly (and I *love* that story).
Not only that, but the whole thing would have been over by about episode
2 if the third Doctor's character had been anything *other* than a rude
and arrogant bastard. If he'd actually taken the time to listen to Quinn,
instead of dismissing him so rudely, many lives would have been saved
(then again, many episodes wouldn't have been there, so I guess it's
justified).
- Robert Smith?
Snowflake
In article <847964...@tooon.demon.co.uk>,
Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
No.. actually someone else played rubbish in "The Time Warrior"....
Brian
Marcus Durham
In article <56ga4e$10...@tombstone.kent.edu>, Jeffery Beuck
<jbe...@kent.kent.edu> wrote this:
>Keith Topping (Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>
Keith? In your killfile?!?!?? Your loss I suppose.
--
Marcus E. Durham
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/index.htm
"I'm a very dangerous fellow when I don't know what Im doing"
Christopher Norman
Keith Topping wrote:
>
> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
Thought he was all right in that one. Go a bit later, though,
to "Monster of Peladon" or "Time Monster"...*that's* bad
acting.
Christopher Norman
Jeri Massi
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Oh gosh, I just love Time Monster, and everybody else hates it. And I
just love it. Can't defend it. I just love it. If it gives you any
clue to my personality, I also love Colony in Space. . . .
One insight: the best actor in the world can't do much when the
writers have to give him five full minutes of fluff to bring the
episode to its cliffhanger.
Paul Gadzikowski
Keith Topping (Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
Nonsense. That's exactly what he does when he exits the Axon spaceship.
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com
homepage http://members.iglou.com/scarfman
This week: Armchair DOCTOR WHO Story Editor
The Doctor in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, part 3
I know Christianity has done a lot to answer for in two millenia,
but I tire of people throwing the baby out with the manger straw.
Alden Bates
Jeffery Beuck (jbe...@kent.kent.edu) writes:
>Keith Topping (Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>
Wow, what model's that one Jeff? I should get myself a killfile
one of these days... The type 60s are nice, they make a 'whoop,
whoop' noise.
Alden Bates.
--
_ _ _ __ al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz|http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~bates
/.\| | | .\ "That's a daft idea." |Links and pictures and stuff.
| .< If a UFO crashes in the woods, and there's no one around
|_|_|_|_|__. to hear it, is there a government conspiracy?
jmil...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk (Keith Topping) writes:
>Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
Someone remind me to recycle this post when "Devil Goblins
of Neptune" is released. ;)
--
% Jason A. Miller % jmil...@uoft02.utoledo.edu %
% "some doctor guy" % Native New Yorker %
% "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a %
% showoff. I have been called all of these. Of course, %
% I am." -- Howard Cosell %
Jeffery Beuck
Alden Bates (al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz) wrote:
: >And Mr. Topping goes into my killfile ... like so ...
: >
: >BLOOP!
: Wow, what model's that one Jeff? I should get myself a killfile
: one of these days... The type 60s are nice, they make a 'whoop,
: whoop' noise.
I'm thinking about changing the audio file to a sound bite of Mel
shrieking. Want a copy?
Keith Topping
>: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
> Nonsense. That's exactly what he does when he exits the Axon spaceship.
Oh yeh, I forgot. Sorry.
--
Keith === Net Day 364
Darryl W Gillikin
>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>>
>> Keith === Net Day 362
>
>hey now -- that's my favorite doctor you're talking about
>if there's one thing Pertwee is good at - it's acting
>Now if we're going to bash a doctor - it must always be McCoy
>learn this rule
Or, if need be, you can replace McCoy with Colin Baker. :-)
(I like Colin! I really do!!)
Be seeing you,
Darryl
Keith Topping
>> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
> Someone remind me to recycle this post when "Devil Goblins
> of Neptune" is released. ;)
AT LAST - somebody's *got* the joke!
I sometimes wonder why I bother...
--
Keith === Net Day 365
'I Will Not Celebrate Meaningless Milestones...'
bart t lammey
: : I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
: Nonsense. That's exactly what he does when he exits the Axon spaceship.
:
QUOTE FILE!
Bart T. Lammey
"I'm doing this far too often."
Grant Watson
"William Thompson" <wat...@mail.misnet.com> wrote:
>Anyway, my first post to this group was right after his
>untimely death, and that was in response to some jerk who
>was celebrating his death by singing Zippity-do-da!
>Please, people! Must we spit on his grave?
There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
saying that their acting was "rubbish".
Pertwee may have been a delightful and wonderful man. I still agree
that he was by far the worst actor to play the Doctor. That's not
spitting on his grave, its criticising his performance.
Cheers
Grant.
P.S. He was marvellous as Worzel Gummidge, though.
______...@iinet.net.au_________
"I've already killed you once. What
does it take to teach some people?"
MR CROUP, "NEVERWHERE"
Zebee Johnstone
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:59:11 GMT, Grant Watson <nz...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
> Pertwee may have been a delightful and wonderful man. I still agree
>that he was by far the worst actor to play the Doctor. That's not
>spitting on his grave, its criticising his performance.
Interesting... what makes you say that his acting was rubbish?
What specifically was wrong with the *acting* as distinct from the
scripting?
IS it the characterisation of the writers or that of the actor you
dislike, and can you explain the difference to me?
This isn;t a trick question, I'm genuinely interested as to how one
does split the two.
Zebee
Jeri Massi
nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
But Pertwee was great as the Doctor. He got me hooked on the show,
and he got lots of other people hooked on it.
Jeri
Jason
Keith Topping:
> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
Right. I don't actually want to say anything, but since most everyone else
has quoted this bit of Keith's post I want a go too.
--
Jason =-) ____________________________________ ___________ ___ ___ _____
/__ ___/ |/ |/ // |
Commodore 64 freak and Random Companion's slave / / | // /| |
_______________________________________________ / /____| / // __ |
______ www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7384 _____ /__/____ |___/|___//__/_ |__|
William Thompson
Grant Watson <nz...@iinet.net.au> wrote in article
<56o24b$q...@opera.iinet.net.au>...
> "William Thompson" <wat...@mail.misnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, my first post to this group was right after his
> >untimely death, and that was in response to some jerk who
> >was celebrating his death by singing Zippity-do-da!
> >Please, people! Must we spit on his grave?
>
> There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
> saying that their acting was "rubbish".
> Pertwee may have been a delightful and wonderful man. I still agree
> that he was by far the worst actor to play the Doctor. That's not
> spitting on his grave, its criticising his performance.
>
If Jon Pertwee had not been placed in the role of "The Doctor" and some
other actor had (keeping in mind how popular Pertwee's performance was
during the original air dates), would "Doctor Who" have continued until
1989 (or 1996 depending on how you look at it)?
Alden Bates
Jeffery Beuck (jbe...@kent.kent.edu) writes:
>I'm thinking about changing the audio file to a sound bite of Mel
>shrieking. Want a copy?
Ooooooh, is that the full trapped-in-the-bubble 30 seconds of
screaming from Time and the Rani? I've been meaning to sample
that...
Alden Bates. (I really should get around to doing that animated
cursor...)
/.\| | | .\ "That's a daft idea." |The Official Alden Bates Home Page
| .< The flashing light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming
|_|_|_|_|__. TARDIS...
William Thompson
Paul Rhodes <paul....@liffe.com> wrote in article
<32922a6f.415396809@news>...
> Tell us which other actor you have in mind, and maybe the question is
> worth considering.
The choice is up to you. If you wish me to name off other British actor at
the time who could have been cast then I guess you have decided the
question is not worth considering!
>
> Or do you think Pertwee was the most popular actor in the world bar
> none at that time?
I never said that! Anyway I don't even know who the most popular British
actor was at that time.
--
Bill Thompson +------------------------------------------+
wat...@misnet.com | No unsolicited commercial e-mail, please.|
---------------------+------------------------------------------+
Paul Rhodes
"William Thompson" <wat...@mail.misnet.com> wrote:
>If Jon Pertwee had not been placed in the role of "The Doctor" and some
>other actor had (keeping in mind how popular Pertwee's performance was
>during the original air dates), would "Doctor Who" have continued until
>1989 (or 1996 depending on how you look at it)?
Tell us which other actor you have in mind, and maybe the question is
worth considering.
Or do you think Pertwee was the most popular actor in the world bar
none at that time?
Paul
Jonathan Blum
In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
I agree. Now, what was that you said about the telemovie "stinking",
Jeri?
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Kate Orman
In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>
>
>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>
>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>
>and he got lots of other people hooked on it.
Fair enough. Maybe next time you'll think twice before hooting, "The film
sucks!" just to annoy people who liked it. :-)
--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman
Jeri Massi
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>>
>>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>>
>>But Pertwee was great as the Doctor. He got me hooked on the show,
>>and he got lots of other people hooked on it.
>Fair enough. Maybe next time you'll think twice before hooting, "The film
>sucks!" just to annoy people who liked it. :-)
No, the word was stink. And I never told the guy what he could and
could not say. I just pointed out the difference between spitting on
a grave and a statement of taste.
And I think the point of my original post on the movie was that I
wasn't following the crowd like it was some sort of religion to like
the movie. You know, like keeping score several weeks back and taking
it as a personal affront when people don't like it. And you know,
keeping track of who likes it and who doesn't. You know, like it
matters in the long run or in the scope of eternity. But if it's any
help, Kate, I'm sorry if I offended you and Jon by thinking and saying
that the movie stinks. Although I still think that it does. I just
can't figure out why you guys get so upset that I do. Maybe we should
continue this on e-mail.
Darryl W Gillikin
In article <01bbd4fd$738793a0$LocalHost@wathomp>,
William Thompson <wat...@mail.misnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Grant Watson <nz...@iinet.net.au> wrote in article
>> "William Thompson" <wat...@mail.misnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Anyway, my first post to this group was right after his
>> >untimely death, and that was in response to some jerk who
>> >was celebrating his death by singing Zippity-do-da!
>> >Please, people! Must we spit on his grave?
>>
>> saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>> that he was by far the worst actor to play the Doctor. That's not
>> spitting on his grave, its criticising his performance.
>>
>other actor had (keeping in mind how popular Pertwee's performance was
>during the original air dates), would "Doctor Who" have continued until
>1989 (or 1996 depending on how you look at it)?
Bill, that has nothing to do with what Grant Watson is saying. Pertwee's
popularity during his original run does not mean that he was a good
actor, and Grant's contention is that he was not. Many actors have
achieved unbelievable heights of popularity. That does not automatically
make them good actors. Keanu Reeves, for example, is a tremendously
popular actor in today's world, more so among youth culture than, say,
Orson Welles. Does that mean that Keanu Reeves is a superior actor to
Orson Welles?
Whether Jon Pertwee was a good or bad actor is not an argument I want to
get into, so I'm not casting judgement on that issue. I am just saying
that your response to Grant was entirely off the point.
Be seeing you,
Darryl
Simon Bevis
In article <56gdab$a...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Jeri Massi wrote...>>: Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>>: I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a
paper bag!
>
>
>>BLOOP!
>Wow, Jeff, my kill file doesn't go "bloop" when I drop things into it.
>What software are you using?
>
I think it must come from the BBC's special effects department. I mean
first we had Kate's THWUNK!
(PS: Do these guys do discounts??)
--
Simon Bevis (s.b...@student.murdoch.edu.au)
Glimmering Prospects Pty Ltd is a fictitious organisation specialising
in the delivery of false hope.
Don't be frightened by all the knobs.....
.....This is a learning experience!
Kate Orman
In article <56r718$f...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>>In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>>>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>>>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>>>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>>>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>>>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>>>But Pertwee was great as the Doctor. He got me hooked on the show,
>>>and he got lots of other people hooked on it.
>
>>Fair enough. Maybe next time you'll think twice before hooting, "The film
>>sucks!" just to annoy people who liked it. :-)
>No, the word was stink. And I never told the guy what he could and
>could not say. I just pointed out the difference between spitting on
>a grave and a statement of taste.
And I didn't tell *you* what you could or couldn't say. I just pointed
out that if someone slagging Jon Pertwee to annoy you is
"kid-weenie-ism", what's you slagging the film to annoy me? :-)
>And I think the point of my original post on the movie was that I
>wasn't following the crowd like it was some sort of religion to like
>the movie. You know, like keeping score several weeks back and taking
>it as a personal affront when people don't like it. And you know,
>keeping track of who likes it and who doesn't. You know, like it
>matters in the long run or in the scope of eternity. But if it's any
>help, Kate, I'm sorry if I offended you and Jon by thinking and saying
>that the movie stinks. Although I still think that it does. I just
>can't figure out why you guys get so upset that I do. Maybe we should
>continue this on e-mail.
You know why it annoys us, Jeri - we've told you a dozen times.
It's nothing to do with whether or not you liked the film - there's no
disputing taste. It's to do with being provocative and silly. A bit like
Keith was, really.
(I don't know anyone who keeps some kind of blacklist of film haters - or
film likers, for that matter. Then again, just because you're paranoid
don't mean they're not after you. :-)
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>I agree. Now, what was that you said about the telemovie "stinking",
>Jeri?
It stunk.
Keith Topping
In article <56s1bt$6...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au "Kate Orman" writes:
> And I didn't tell *you* what you could or couldn't say. I just pointed
> out that if someone slagging Jon Pertwee to annoy you is
> "kid-weenie-ism", what's you slagging the film to annoy me? :-)
Can somebody *please* tell me what on earth a "kid weeine" is and how in
the name of God *I* qualify as one?
Thanks, it's appreciated.
> It's nothing to do with whether or not you liked the film - there's no
> disputing taste. It's to do with being provocative and silly. A bit like
> Keith was, really.
As it happens I was - well I was bored - but this is actually a very
interesting point. Suppose I *hadn't* been joshing and suppose I really
did believe that Pertwee was "rubbish". What's to stop me from having
that opinion and being subjected to nonsensical abuse ('kid-weenie' -
I ask you!) and some dickhead sticking me in his kill-file (and I
haven't forgotten that one, matey - not by a long chalk...)?
Who is to say whose opinion is more valid? I'm the last person to make
a plea for peace-and-understanding-yeh; I hate phoney liberalism more
than I hate the Nazi's, but there does come a point when you've received
the fifteenth posting today saying "Hey man, McCoy wasn't fit to lick
Pertwee's boots" where you just think - Grow Up you Sad Bastards and
stick on the Prodigy at volume 11.
Don't you?
Well I do...
--
Keith === Net Day 367
'I got de poison, I got de remadeeee'
R.J. Smith
In article <56r6k2$2...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
>>In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>>>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>>>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>>>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>>>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>>>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>>I agree. Now, what was that you said about the telemovie "stinking",
>>Jeri?
>It stunk.
So na-na-nee-poo-poo.
- Robert Smith?
E.G. Clayton
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Jeri Massi wrote:
> jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
> >In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
> >Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
> >>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
> >>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
> >>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>
> >I agree. Now, what was that you said about the telemovie "stinking",
> >Jeri?
>
> It stunk.
From one Pertwee fan to another: I think you could find a less
kid-weenie-ish way of telling us you didn't like the movie than
saying it "stank". Posts like that border tenuously on getting
my ire up the same way Cornell used to do when he came online and
proclaimed that the entire Pertwee era was "crap". It was really
unnecessary, and made him look like a jerk IMO. The same opinions
could be expressed with less hostility (not to mention inanity).
(I'll point to Robert Smith? as one example of someone here I've seen
criticize Pertwee without being a bit of a weenie in the process.)
Ed
Jeri Massi
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, jl...@epix.net (John Long) says:
>Keith Topping wrote:
>>
>> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>>
>
>hey now -- that's my favorite doctor you're talking about
>if there's one thing Pertwee is good at - it's acting
>Now if we're going to bash a doctor - it must always be McCoy
>learn this rule
>
We mustn't bash doctors at all. Or Doctors for that matter. A
hardworking bunch, all of 'em.
-Chris
--
================Chris Rednour - cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu=============
Jonathan Blum
In article <56r718$f...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>>In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>>>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>>>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>>>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>>Fair enough. Maybe next time you'll think twice before hooting, "The film
>>sucks!" just to annoy people who liked it. :-)
>No, the word was stink. And I never told the guy what he could and
>could not say. I just pointed out the difference between spitting on
>a grave and a statement of taste.
No, actually, you said that calling something rubbish was "just plain
insulting" and "kid-weenie-ism". Where precisely is the difference
between Keith posting just to call Pertwee rubbish, and you posting just
to say "The film stinks"?
>And I think the point of my original post on the movie was that I
>wasn't following the crowd like it was some sort of religion to like
>the movie.
I can see why a Pertwee fan would assume that being a non-conformist and
being provocatively rude went hand-in-hand. :-) Me, one of the things I
like about the McGann Doctor is that he does his own thing, believes what
he believes in, doesn't keep it a secret -- but doesn't go around being
blatantly rude and obnoxious to people in the process.
Jeri, you posted a number of two-or-three-line bashes at the movie. When
I asked you to substantiate your claims, you refused to back up anything
you said -- instead ducking and weaving with a series of content-free
one-line postings. *That's* what annoyed me. Not that you expressed a
different opinion than mine -- notice how I've been disagreeing
respectfully with people like JML and Chris Heer, who weren't fond of the
film either -- but because you expressed it as a series of content-free
insults.
We're not picking on you because you dare not to like the film, Jeri.
We're picking on you because you post mindless insults about it.
>You know, like keeping score several weeks back and taking
>it as a personal affront when people don't like it. And you know,
>keeping track of who likes it and who doesn't.
If you say the same things over and over and over again, how can you act
surprised that people actually remember them?
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk (Keith Topping) says:
>In article <01bbd23c$e123a160$LocalHost@wathomp>
> wat...@mail.misnet.com "William Thompson" writes:
>
>>> Pertwee was *rubbish* though, wasn't he?
>>> I mean, come on - be serious - he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag!
>
>> This is a troll.
>
>'course it was y'great wazzock!
>way does *everybody* on this thing assume that everyone else is being
>100% serious *all the time*???
>
No smiley :)
-Chris
Who never takes people dissing Pertwee seriously anyhow... :)
R. Dan Henry
Keith Topping wrote:
> Can somebody *please* tell me what on earth a "kid weeine" is and how
> in the name of God *I* qualify as one?
> Thanks, it's appreciated.
It is a frankfurter made from goat. I don't see how it applies. Sorry.
:-)
--
R. Dan Henry (danh...@inreach.com)
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk (Keith Topping) says:
>In article <56gop9$3...@news.istar.ca>
> jsa...@istar.ca "Jean-Paul C. Samson" writes:
>
>> Are you sure you're not Paul Cornell?
>
>Fairly positive.
So you've checked recently?
-Chris
Just curious :)
Jeri Massi
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>I can see why a Pertwee fan would assume that being a non-conformist and
>being provocatively rude went hand-in-hand. :-) Me, one of the things I
>like about the McGann Doctor is that he does his own thing, believes what
>he believes in, doesn't keep it a secret -- but doesn't go around being
>blatantly rude and obnoxious to people in the process.
That's fine, Jon. You just be the person you want to be. It doesn't
bother me at all. It never occurred to me that thinking a bad movie
was bad would be a personal insult to people. After all, I love
Pertwee, but I think Mutants was horrible (horribly boring), and when
every other DW'er exclaims about the overall crappiness of Colony in
Space, I don't take it personally (except I still can't figure out why
it continues to be one of my favorite stories), even though I really
like Colony in Space.
>Jeri, you posted a number of two-or-three-line bashes at the movie. When
>I asked you to substantiate your claims, you refused to back up anything
>you said -- instead ducking and weaving with a series of content-free
>one-line postings. *That's* what annoyed me.
I never bothered to because it got so over hashed online. Besides, I
don't need to. What do I care if you agreee or disagree with me about
the movie? You're perfectly welcome to like it. I'm glad that you do,
because it means that you get more happiness out of it than I do,
which is always good to know. I mean, if it's a waste on me, at least
it's not a waste on you. After reading all your trashing of Terrance
Dicks, it never even occurred ot me that you would actually think it
somehow wrong for somebody to express a negative opinion of something.
Like I said, I was content to say the movie was poor (stunk), but I'm
sure that Segal and McGann have a lot of good stuff left to do. I
don't intend to write off their opnions or their future work just
because the DW movie was so poor.
Jeri Massi
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>And I didn't tell *you* what you could or couldn't say. I just pointed
>out that if someone slagging Jon Pertwee to annoy you is
>"kid-weenie-ism", what's you slagging the film to annoy me? :-)
I'm honestly not, Kate. Look back at the folders and you'll see I'm
absent from all the hot discussions. I really made my point about the
religious-like conformity that somebody described when I made my
reaction to the movie so public. I wouldn't take it to Segal or
McGann and say they stink or even that their abilities are rubbish or
anything like that. Just that the movie stank. Because it really
did. But I think they can produce great stuff and hope they will.
Unlike others, I'm not willing to write them off because of one bad
ending or one poor script. But it really was a lousy movie. But
Kate, it wasn't a tact to annoy. I like it fine if you like the
movie. I also like it fine if you think it's a great movie. Last you
wrote on my expressing my opinion about it, I thought you were just
joking around with me, responding to my joking about being so radical
in disliking the movie so much. That's all.
David P. Golding
In article <56tpgn$2...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
jer...@pipeline.com (Jeri Massi) wrote:
>It never occurred to me that thinking a bad movie
>was bad would be a personal insult to people.
I'm sure it never occurred to Keith that thinking a bad actor was bad
would be a personal insult to people.
higs
--
David Golding [david by default] http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~aknyra
Yes it's true we are immune
We practice fiction and superiority
Jeri Massi
dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (David P. Golding) wrote:
>In article <56tpgn$2...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
> jer...@pipeline.com (Jeri Massi) wrote:
>>It never occurred to me that thinking a bad movie
>>was bad would be a personal insult to people.
>I'm sure it never occurred to Keith that thinking a bad actor was bad
>would be a personal insult to people.
>higs
Only to Pertwee, I suppose, since he was the actor being dismissed.
Fortunately, a movie has no consciousness and no friends (or so I
assumed). I think my original point in the thread was to tell William
that what Keith said didn't matter one way or the other.
David P. Golding
In article <56un9e$p...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
>>I'm sure it never occurred to Keith that thinking a bad actor was
>>bad would be a personal insult to people.
>Only to Pertwee, I suppose, since he was the actor being dismissed.
Who is dead, and certainly doesn't read RADW. If he is still capable
of detecting such an insult, I'm sure he's way beyond caring about
such things.
>Fortunately, a movie has no consciousness and no friends (or so I
>assumed).
Of course, you're insulting *each and every one of the people* who
made the movie by saying it stank with no qualifiers. And we do know
that various people associated with that movie are on the net, or have
contact with the net.
>I think my original point in the thread was to tell William
>that what Keith said didn't matter one way or the other.
It's a pity that you had to insult Keith then, isn't it? Most people
would have taken the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" approach.
I certainly didn't feel the need to tell Keith that he was wrong or
call him names.
Leviathan
In article <848446...@tooon.demon.co.uk>, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk says...
>What's to stop me from having that opinion and being subjected to nonsensical
>abuse ('kid-weenie' - I ask you!) and some dickhead sticking me in his
>kill-file (and I haven't forgotten that one, matey - not by a long chalk...)?
Y'know, I've got to say, I've always found this whole passive-agressive
kill-filism thing to be really kind of childish and annoying. And I apply this
equally to morons, and to people, like Kate, who I otherwise respect.
Maybe, having WinVN, which doesn't to my knowledge, support kill-files, I'm
just missing out on the tons of fun one brings. I dunno.
But I can't help but think, with every colorful little "Plonk" or "Thwunk,"
that I'm witnessing the 'net equivalent of someone sticking hir fingers in hir
ears and going "DA-DA-DA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA!" or some similar
kindergarten-era behavior.
I also see the use of a kill-file as a little gutless, as well. I've too
often seen it used as the final answer to a difficult-to-refute argument, as a
way of hiding from someone who can outwit, outwrite, outargue or outflame you.
It is, in the end, an abdication and a retreat, an abandonment of the field to
the opposing team. It's a surrender.
To do that publicly, crowing, as if in triumph, is really kind of sad.
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@ma.ultranet.com
"I ain't gonna pay no dollar for a corn muffin that's half-dough!"
-- Kevin Kling
The Admiral
In article <56tidb$8...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu> cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8) writes:
|We mustn't bash doctors at all. Or Doctors for that matter. A
|hardworking bunch, all of 'em.
Mustn't bash Doctors, but doctors...? Well, the doctor community as a
whole are a hardworking bunch, but some of the individuals deserve
a good bashing. (I know my Spousal Overunit [TM by JMS] would like
to bash a few of 'em and she's working on her MD & PhD right now...)
To get back to that original thread, personally, I'm rather fond of
both "Silurians" and Pertwee. I just adore the Pertwee era and have
a really hard time understanding how some people can bash Pertwee
and defend "The Happiness Patrol" or "Paradise Towers" or "Survival"
in the same sentence.
I still love to fantasize about the timeline in which Colin Baker's
Doctor is the Doctor in all of Tom Baker's stories. :-)
--
-- The Admiral, star...@eskimo.com, http://www.eskimo.com/~starfury/
I'm back...and it's about time!
"You have WAY too much time on your hands, Zecca. :)" | "You are a Net God."
-- Chris Heer, 7.7.95 | -- Andy Lane, 19.7.95
Keith Topping
In article <56tih7$e...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>
cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu
"christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012," writes:
>>> Are you sure you're not Paul Cornell?
>> Fairly positive.
> So you've checked recently?
every bloody day, mate!
> Just curious :)
I can dig that.
--
Keith === Net Day 368
Keith Topping
In article <56tig9$g...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>
>>> This is a troll.
>> 'course it was y'great wazzock!
>> way does *everybody* on this thing assume that everyone else is being
>> 100% serious *all the time*???
> No smiley :)
Seldom use 'em. They suggest (to me) that the reader doesn't have the
intelligence to spot satire when it's presented.
Hmmm... I see what you're getting at...
--
Keith === Net Day 368
'smiley, though your heart is breaking...'
E. Larry Lidz
In article <E16sB...@eskimo.com>, The Admiral <star...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>I still love to fantasize about the timeline in which Colin Baker's
>Doctor is the Doctor in all of Tom Baker's stories. :-)
Dream on, Zecca.
Though I must admit, the last few times I've gone through the Colin
Baker stories I've started liking him more and more. I mean, first,
he's openly snide and mean to his companions: a real bonus with Peri
and Mel. [1]
Also, I don't mind him as much in other ways. I'd have liked to see him
in some different stories, though. The writing and plots for him was
pretty weak. He was much better as the only competant Gallifrean guard
through-out the series.
-Larry
[1] Of course, Davison was sneakly mean to Adric and Tegan, and that
was significantly more fun to watch.
Keith Topping
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.96111...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu>
cla...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu "E.G. Clayton" writes:
> Posts like that border tenuously on getting
> my ire up the same way Cornell used to do when he came online and
> proclaimed that the entire Pertwee era was "crap". It was really
> unnecessary, and made him look like a jerk IMO.
He speaks highly of you too.
Jeri Massi
>It's a pity that you had to insult Keith then, isn't it? Most people
>would have taken the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" approach.
>I certainly didn't feel the need to tell Keith that he was wrong or
>call him names.
And I am proud of you for this. Honestly.
Random Companion
In article <56t5kq$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, "R.J. Smith" <smithrj2@m
cmail.cis.McMaster.CA> writes
>So na-na-nee-poo-poo.
>
Didn't they get to no1 in 1973 with Baby I want your love thing?
--
Random Companion
The Unofficial rec.arts.drwho / alt.fan.pratchett / uk.media.tv.sf.drwho /
alt.drwho.creative Quotefile!
http://www.espace.demon.co.uk/quotes.html
The Admiral
In article <56usu0$6...@decius.ultra.net> jsh...@ultranet.com (Leviathan) writes:
|In article <848446...@tooon.demon.co.uk>, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk says...
|>What's to stop me from having that opinion and being subjected to nonsensical
|>abuse ('kid-weenie' - I ask you!) and some dickhead sticking me in his
|>kill-file (and I haven't forgotten that one, matey - not by a long chalk...)?
|
|Y'know, I've got to say, I've always found this whole passive-agressive
|kill-filism thing to be really kind of childish and annoying. And I apply this
|equally to morons, and to people, like Kate, who I otherwise respect.
You know, I've long noticed a propensity on this newsgroup for boasting
about the size and contents of one's kill-file.
It's not the size (or the content) of the kill-file that's important,
but how you use it.
From a long-time killfile user, who has used it with very good intentions
(including *saving* posts that I definitely wanted to read at a later
time) and to keep from going insane due to over-bandwidth.
Kate Orman
In article <56usu0$6...@decius.ultra.net>,
Leviathan <jsh...@ultranet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>But I can't help but think, with every colorful little "Plonk" or "Thwunk,"
>that I'm witnessing the 'net equivalent of someone sticking hir fingers in hir
>ears and going "DA-DA-DA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA!" or some similar
>kindergarten-era behavior.
[snip]
I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
*why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
bores.
I'd move away from those people at a party. Here on the net, I feel
equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
David P. Golding
In article <56vv3j$8...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
jer...@pipeline.com (Jeri Massi) wrote:
>>It's a pity that you had to insult Keith then, isn't it? Most people
>>would have taken the "everyone's entitled to their opinions"
>>approach.
>
>>I certainly didn't feel the need to tell Keith that he was wrong or
>>call him names.
>
>And I am proud of you for this. Honestly.
<raises eyebrow, painting a scene reminiscent of Ivanova staring at
Marcus from her bed in 'Shadow Dancing'>
It could be exams, or it could be just me...
<shakes head>
Leviathan
In article <570bct$o...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
says...
>
>In article <56usu0$6...@decius.ultra.net>,
>Leviathan <jsh...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>But I can't help but think, with every colorful little "Plonk" or "Thwunk,"
>>that I'm witnessing the 'net equivalent of someone sticking hir fingers in
hir
>>ears and going "DA-DA-DA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA!" or some similar
>>kindergarten-era behavior.
>
>[snip]
>
>I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>*why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
>
>The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
>bores.
>
>I'd move away from those people at a party. Here on the net, I feel
>equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
I don't disagree even remotely. There's nothing wrong with socializing with
those who you enjoy, and not with those you don't. (Hell, I don't read even
close to a majority of posts here. I couldn't keep up. I read published
authors [more likely to say something worth reading] and Jon Blum, who I
started reading because I like his first name, and kept with because I like
his posts. Others when they become part of a thread that caught my eye.
What I'm talking about is making a point of telling the newsgroup at large
that you've kill-filed somebody. I can see sending somebody e-mail to let 'em
know you're all done with 'em, so they don't keep trying to continue the
argument.
But the publicly-posted "Plonk!" still strikes me as I posted previously.
Just something to think about.
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
Alden Bates
Keith Topping (Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk) writes:
>Can somebody *please* tell me what on earth a "kid weeine" is and how in
>the name of God *I* qualify as one?
A kid-weenie is a young person usualy pre-teen, who logs on from an
older siblings account and posts something like "Doctor Who sucks"
to RADW or so forth. At least, that's how I interpret it.
I don't know how your qualify as one, your post actually mentioned
"Jon Pertwee" and "acting". Highbrow-kid-weenism then? :-)
>Suppose I *hadn't* been joshing and suppose I really did believe
>that Pertwee was "rubbish". What's to stop me from having
>that opinion and being subjected to nonsensical abuse ('kid-weenie' -
>I ask you!) and some dickhead sticking me in his kill-file (and I
>haven't forgotten that one, matey - not by a long chalk...)?
Poor Jeff. You're really going to hound him for taking you
seriously aren't you. :-)
I'm happy with people posting their opinions as long as they don't
state them as utter fact. I do think that followups to messages
like "McCoy is shit" should be better handled though. Perhaps by
pointing out to the poster a less inflamatory way of presenting
their opinion.
"McCoy is shit" for instance, ought to be phrased, "I didn't like
McCoy's protrayal of the Doctor."
The latter is less likely to incite flames than the former, innit?
It would certainly be better if people started politely doing this,
rather than flaming out of hand.
> Who is to say whose opinion is more valid? I'm the last person to make
>a plea for peace-and-understanding-yeh; I hate phoney liberalism more
>than I hate the Nazi's, but there does come a point when you've received
>the fifteenth posting today saying "Hey man, McCoy wasn't fit to lick
>Pertwee's boots" where you just think - Grow Up you Sad Bastards and
>stick on the Prodigy at volume 11.
> Don't you?
> Well I do...
Every time I see a message saying "Bonnie Langford is
vomit-inducing".
I mean, if they phrased it: "Every time I see Bonnie Langford, I
want to vomit" I'd be happy, but the original sentance seems to be
inplying that she makes _everyone_ want to vomit, and that's
simply not true.
Alden Bates. (Clambering down off his soapbox, he slips in a muddy
patch and ends up face first on the ground. Laughter all round.)
PS: Gads, that sounds horrible: Everyone on RADW being civil and
polite to each other...
--
_ _ _ __ al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz|http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~bates
/.\| | | .\ "That's a daft idea." |Doctor Who, Mike Oldfield & more
| .< This is a sanity free zone. Absolutely no sanity
|_|_|_|_|__. is permitted between the hours of 7am and 5pm.
David J. A. Lewis
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>In article <56oe8p$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is a big difference between "spitting on someones grave" and
>>>saying that their acting was "rubbish".
>>
>>Well, not much. I think there's a difference in spitting on someone's
>>grave and saying that you dislike his acting or that he failed to
>>convince you in that role, but calling a person's acting rubbish is
>>just plain insulting. Another classic case of kid-weenie-ism.
>>
>>and he got lots of other people hooked on it.
>
whatever you think of Pertwee as an actor, I don't believe he was ever
given a chance to display his range or his real talents namely mimicry.
He could imitate different accents, dialects and different character
voices, what made him so famous on radio. He rarely got a chance to
display this talent, apart from a few less than notable exceptions. That
terrible Welsh Milkman, and Welsh Cleaning Lady in Green Death are less
than flattering examples.
--
Dai
I saw a Dalek on my screen,
all pink, with spots of blue and green.
I saw green Zarbi,
and an orange cow.
I think I'll stop taking acid now.
E.G. Clayton
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Alden Bates wrote:
> I'm happy with people posting their opinions as long as they don't
> state them as utter fact. I do think that followups to messages
> like "McCoy is shit" should be better handled though. Perhaps by
> pointing out to the poster a less inflamatory way of presenting
> their opinion.
>
> "McCoy is shit" for instance, ought to be phrased, "I didn't like
> McCoy's protrayal of the Doctor."
Just to join in on this thought: I'm happy with people posting their
opinions, too, but in addition to not stating them as utter fact, I
rather prefer that they state them in a way that leaves people of
contrary views a little bit of room not to consider themselves
directly insulted by the statement. "McCoy is shit" or "Pertwee
is crap" is hardly improved by adding an "IMHO" disclaimer, as the
statement is basically that anybody who *enjoys* this Doctor has, in
fact, a taste for shit, which I do not believe I have, and don't wish
to be told otherwise by some smug wanker at the other end of a computer
line.
Your rephrasing of the statement about McCoy ought to be acceptable to
just about everyone, but I suspect it doesn't contain enough venom to
allow people of an uncommonly snide persuasion to properly vent their
bitterness!
Ed
Keith Topping
In article <570bct$o...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au "Kate Orman" writes:
> The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
> bores.
> I'd move away from those people at a party. Here on the net, I feel
> equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
Kate, I've got to say this. For somebody who I've got a lot of time for,
I find that statement to be *hideous*. I'm serious. That's just about the
most arrogant thing I've ever heard anybody say on this, or any other
subject. What gives you the right to judge somebody's worth by something
as artificial as posts to newsgroups? Abusive posters? Fine, they ask for
it by their actions. But, bigots and bores? Both are in the eye of the
beholder, surely?
Hey, look, you might have had a bad day when you wrote that, but if not
and you're serious, then you've (sadly) got an attitude problem.
I've never kill-filed anybody; God knows, I've thought about it a few
times, but if you kill free speech (no matter how loony it is) they you're
only one step away from burning books in the streets and locking up
dissidents. Sorry, but it's the way I feel.
--
Keith === Net Day 369
The Doctor
In article <572r0j$b...@tombstone.kent.edu>,
Jeffery Beuck <jbe...@kent.kent.edu> wrote:
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>
>: bores.
>
>Whew! I luckily escaped this round!
>--
>88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
>Jeff Beuck jbe...@kent.edu
>88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Given Kate's illogical logic, she proves that only IDIOTS uses kill-files.
--
God, Queen and Country Member - Liberal International
NEVER Satan, President and Republic Member - Edmonton Heritage Nazarene
Hating Bachelor's Living Member - Any Edmonton PC User Group
Republicanism is Satanism: Satan wants to usurp God from his throne just like
republicans are out to dismiss monarchies.
http://doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca/~doctor Save the World and Civilization; REPUBLICS DISSOLVE! BTW, send e-birthday card to mor...@uni.edu on 15 November
R.J. Smith
>>What's to stop me from having that opinion and being subjected to nonsensical
>>abuse ('kid-weenie' - I ask you!) and some dickhead sticking me in his
>>kill-file (and I haven't forgotten that one, matey - not by a long chalk...)?
>Y'know, I've got to say, I've always found this whole passive-agressive
>kill-filism thing to be really kind of childish and annoying. And I apply this
>equally to morons, and to people, like Kate, who I otherwise respect.
>Maybe, having WinVN, which doesn't to my knowledge, support kill-files, I'm
>just missing out on the tons of fun one brings. I dunno.
>But I can't help but think, with every colorful little "Plonk" or "Thwunk,"
>that I'm witnessing the 'net equivalent of someone sticking hir fingers in hir
>ears and going "DA-DA-DA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA!" or some similar
>kindergarten-era behavior.
*THWUNK*
Er, wait, no...
:-)
>I also see the use of a kill-file as a little gutless, as well. I've too
>often seen it used as the final answer to a difficult-to-refute argument, as a
>way of hiding from someone who can outwit, outwrite, outargue or outflame you.
When used that way, yes, I agree. But when used to cut down on the
pointlessness, the inanity or whatever it can be a great way to save
reading time on radw (which even the best of us will admit is filled with
a lot of junk sometimes).
I personally have never used a killfile and likely never will. But that's
a personal thing. I have no problems with someone killfiling to avoid
reading time or something (hell, I know people who have killfiled me for
that very reason!). But I do agree that using it like you outline above is
very gutless.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
>whatever you think of Pertwee as an actor, I don't believe he was ever
>given a chance to display his range or his real talents namely mimicry.
>He could imitate different accents, dialects and different character
>voices, what made him so famous on radio. He rarely got a chance to
>display this talent, apart from a few less than notable exceptions. That
>terrible Welsh Milkman, and Welsh Cleaning Lady in Green Death are less
>than flattering examples.
Mind you, that scene cut from Inferno (but restored for the video
release) was pretty darn good. I know (now) that it was cut because the
producers thought it would be far too obvious that Pertwee was doing the
voice (but, hey, it's an alternate universe! Why *couldn't* the third
Doctor exist in this alternate universe as a DJ? :-) But I digress...),
but I sure couldn't tell (at least not until I found out and then
re-listened to it).
- Robert Smith?
bad (parentheses) day :-)
R.J. Smith
>I still love to fantasize about the timeline in which Colin Baker's
>Doctor is the Doctor in all of Tom Baker's stories. :-)
I like to fantasize about the timeline in which William Hartnell's Doctor
is the Doctor in all of Sylvester McCoy's stories:
"Go on then, dear boy, why don't you, erm, do it, yes? You like guns, my
dear boy, don't you? Well, go on, pull the trimmer, er trigger, end my
life, hmm? Life killing, er, life. Oh yes, oh dearie me, yes. Look me in
the eye, hmm? Simple, my dear boy, simple! Pull the trigger, end a, erm,
yes end it."
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <56tpgn$2...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Jeri Massi <jer...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>That's fine, Jon. You just be the person you want to be. It doesn't
>bother me at all. It never occurred to me that thinking a bad movie
>was bad would be a personal insult to people. After all, I love
>Pertwee, but I think Mutants was horrible (horribly boring), and when
>every other DW'er exclaims about the overall crappiness of Colony in
>Space, I don't take it personally (except I still can't figure out why
>it continues to be one of my favorite stories), even though I really
>like Colony in Space.
You know, that's exactly my reaction to those two stories - except in
reverse!
I *love* the Mutants. I'm not entirely sure why - it has all the
trademarks that I usually dislike about post-Inferno Pertwee stories. And
yet something about it just *clicks* with me.
Colony in Space, on the other hand was actually physically painful to
watch. Even Delgado couldn't save this one.
I guess it's back to that ol' taste thing... :-)
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <56ti7q$8...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
>>And I didn't tell *you* what you could or couldn't say. I just pointed
>>out that if someone slagging Jon Pertwee to annoy you is
>>"kid-weenie-ism", what's you slagging the film to annoy me? :-)
>I'm honestly not, Kate. Look back at the folders and you'll see I'm
>absent from all the hot discussions. I really made my point about the
>religious-like conformity that somebody described when I made my
>reaction to the movie so public. I wouldn't take it to Segal or
>McGann and say they stink or even that their abilities are rubbish or
>anything like that. Just that the movie stank. Because it really
>did. But I think they can produce great stuff and hope they will.
>Unlike others, I'm not willing to write them off because of one bad
>ending or one poor script. But it really was a lousy movie. But
>Kate, it wasn't a tact to annoy. I like it fine if you like the
>movie. I also like it fine if you think it's a great movie. Last you
>wrote on my expressing my opinion about it, I thought you were just
>joking around with me, responding to my joking about being so radical
>in disliking the movie so much. That's all.
I really made my point about the tree-like acting that somebody
described when I made my reaction to the Pertwee-era so public. I wouldn't
take it to Letts or Pertwee and say they stink or even that their
abilities are rubbish or anything like that. Just that the Pertwee era
stank. Because it really did. But I think they can produce great stuff
and hope they will.
Unlike others, I'm not willing to write them off because of four bad
years or one poor actor. But it really was a lousy era. But Jeri, it
wasn't a tact to annoy. I like it fine if you like the Pertwee era. I also
like it fine if you think it's great television.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.96111...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu>,
E.G. Clayton <cla...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Jeri Massi wrote:
>> jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>> >I agree. Now, what was that you said about the telemovie "stinking",
>> >Jeri?
>> It stunk.
>From one Pertwee fan to another: I think you could find a less
>kid-weenie-ish way of telling us you didn't like the movie than
>saying it "stank". Posts like that border tenuously on getting
>my ire up the same way Cornell used to do when he came online and
>proclaimed that the entire Pertwee era was "crap". It was really
>unnecessary, and made him look like a jerk IMO. The same opinions
>could be expressed with less hostility (not to mention inanity).
Yet again Ed Clayton proves himself to be rec.arts.drwho's best kept
secret. I salute you sir...
>(I'll point to Robert Smith? as one example of someone here I've seen
>criticize Pertwee without being a bit of a weenie in the process.)
Whoa! Well, it wasn't for lack of trying, let me tell you... :-)
Well, while we're doing the mutual admiration thing, your McCoy
criticisms have been both informative, mature and persuasive. I never
thought I'd see the day... :-)
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <570bct$o...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>,
Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
>I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>*why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
>The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
>bores.
I guess there aren't many of us left then. Kate? Kate? Hello?
:-)
- Robert Smith?
Keith Topping
>> Can somebody *please* tell me what on earth a "kid weeine" is and how in
>> the name of God *I* qualify as one?
> A kid-weenie is a young person usualy pre-teen, who logs on from an
> older siblings account and posts something like "Doctor Who sucks"
> to RADW or so forth. At least, that's how I interpret it.
sounds like one or two grown adults I know!
> I don't know how your qualify as one, your post actually mentioned
> "Jon Pertwee" and "acting". Highbrow-kid-weenism then? :-)
I was 33 in October, Alden. You have *no idea* how screwed up that makes
me feel. I *want to be* a rock and kiddie, but I'm getting past it.
Pipe and slippers, and watching 'Keeping Up Appearences' instead of
'Men Behaving Badly' to follow. I'll be wearing jumpers next, mark my words!
>>Suppose I *hadn't* been joshing and suppose I really did believe
>>that Pertwee was "rubbish". What's to stop me from having
>>that opinion and being subjected to nonsensical abuse ('kid-weenie' -
>>I ask you!) and some dickhead sticking me in his kill-file (and I
>>haven't forgotten that one, matey - not by a long chalk...)?
> Poor Jeff. You're really going to hound him for taking you
> seriously aren't you. :-)
Nope! (I actually had a fair idea he was joking, but it was too good a
running 'making-the-poor-blokes-life-a-misery' type scenario to waste!)
> I'm happy with people posting their opinions as long as they don't
> state them as utter fact. I do think that followups to messages
> like "McCoy is shit" should be better handled though. Perhaps by
> pointing out to the poster a less inflamatory way of presenting
> their opinion.
Like "I think McCoy is shit" you mean?! No, fair point - mind you,
opinion is opinion. I remember having this argument with somebody on a
music group a while back. My opinion is sacred as far as I'm concerned.
It's no better than anybody else's, but it's no worse either. It's mine
and to interfere with it, however well intentioned, is frankly, not
playing the game.
> The latter is less likely to incite flames than the former, innit?
But not half as funny!
> Alden Bates. (Clambering down off his soapbox, he slips in a muddy
> patch and ends up face first on the ground. Laughter all round.)
> PS: Gads, that sounds horrible: Everyone on RADW being civil and
> polite to each other...
This could be the start of a new trend.
Nah, on second thoughts, cak to that - LETS HAVE A MASSIVE FIGHT!!!!
Or something.
--
Keith === Net Day 369
'love, peace and harmony? very nice, very nice, very nice.
maybe in the next world....'
Si Jerram
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
>In article <E1FKr...@cf.ac.uk>, David J. A. Lewis <lewi...@cf.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Can you explain please ?
>Explain what? My fan theory about the third Doctor being a newscaster in
>an alternate dimension or the details of the scene? If you want the
>details of the scene, then it's pretty much as I described above. The
>Doctor, the Brigade Leader and Liz listen to the broadcast near the end
>of episode 6. It's in the video release.
>If you want the details of my fan theory, then...nah, that's a fate too
>horrible to comprehend :-)
Is this the theory concerning the Alternative 3rd Doctor being a
thoroughly bad apple who became the leader of the alternative Earth?
Jeffery Beuck
Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
: I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
: The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
: bores.
Whew! I luckily escaped this round!
Leviathan
In article <848619...@tooon.demon.co.uk>, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk says...
>> bores.
>> equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
>
>Kate, I've got to say this. For somebody who I've got a lot of time for,
>I find that statement to be *hideous*. I'm serious. That's just about the
>most arrogant thing I've ever heard anybody say on this, or any other
>subject. What gives you the right to judge somebody's worth by something
>as artificial as posts to newsgroups? Abusive posters? Fine, they ask for
>it by their actions. But, bigots and bores? Both are in the eye of the
>beholder, surely?
I think Kate's point is that, just because somebody has something to say, she
doesn't have to listen to 'em. SUrely thta's a fundimental freedom too?
I stand by my criticism of using the kill-file as a passive-aggressive attack,
but, good grief, Keith, is it your position that I've got some responsibility
to read every post in RADW?
How about the rest of the net? Where does it end?
> Hey, look, you might have had a bad day when you wrote that, but if not
>and you're serious, then you've (sadly) got an attitude problem.
> I've never kill-filed anybody; God knows, I've thought about it a few
>times, but if you kill free speech (no matter how loony it is) they you're
>only one step away from burning books in the streets and locking up
>dissidents. Sorry, but it's the way I feel.
Keith, a kill file doesn't take away _anybody's_ freedom of speech. Neither
does anyone's freedom of speech imply that anybody has an obligation to pay
attention.
Bruce Alan Greenwood
In article <572utf$h...@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca> doc...@nl2k.edmonton.AB.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>In article <572r0j$b...@tombstone.kent.edu>,
>Jeffery Beuck <jbe...@kent.kent.edu> wrote:
>>: I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>>: *why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
>>
>>: bores.
>>
>>Whew! I luckily escaped this round!
>>--
>
>
Sung.
Did sing.
Don't worry, Dave - two outa three ain't bad, as the song goes.
---
Bruce Greenwood
"Once I met an elephant, who went to use the telephant - "
Jen
In article <572ufv$f...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
> I like to fantasize about the timeline in which William Hartnell's Doctor
> is the Doctor in all of Sylvester McCoy's stories:
<wibble>
> "Go on then, dear boy, why don't you, erm, do it, yes? You like guns, my
> dear boy, don't you? Well, go on, pull the trimmer, er trigger, end my
> life, hmm? Life killing, er, life. Oh yes, oh dearie me, yes. Look me in
> the eye, hmm? Simple, my dear boy, simple! Pull the trigger, end a, erm,
> yes end it."
"All right, I *will*!" BANG! <thud>
--
j...@sirius.com/ jenni...@aol.com/ rha...@marinet.lib.ca.us
"Cannot run out of time. Time is infinite. You are finite. Zathras is
finite. This... is wrong tool." -- Babylon 5, "War Without End"
...Darth Vader, Librarian: "If you only knew the power of the Dark
Side <heavy breathing>, you would return your books ON TIME."
<casually chokes patron> ;-)
Daniel Ben-Zvi
doc...@nl2k.edmonton.AB.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>>: I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>>: *why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
>>: The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
>>: bores.
>Given Kate's illogical logic, she proves that only IDIOTS uses kill-files.
And in one fell swoop, Dave manages to prove Kate right. Forget to
take your lithium again, Dave?
TTFN,
Dan Ben-Zvi
Keith Topping
> I think Kate's point is that, just because somebody has something to say, she
> doesn't have to listen to 'em. SUrely thta's a fundimental freedom too?
Yes...
> I stand by my criticism of using the kill-file as a passive-aggressive attack,
> but, good grief, Keith, is it your position that I've got some responsibility
> to read every post in RADW?
Yes; if you by the film, you watch all the scenes, surely?
> How about the rest of the net? Where does it end?
It ends where you want it to end (sorry, that sounds like the kind of thing
somebody would say in a bad Michael Cimino film...)
> Keith, a kill file doesn't take away _anybody's_ freedom of speech. Neither
> does anyone's freedom of speech imply that anybody has an obligation to pay
> attention.
But where does *that* all end? "I shan't listen to this party political
broadcast, it's full of bigots and bores".
Wedge, thin end of. Slippery slope, down the...
--
Keith === Net Day 370
James Bow
[snip]
>I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>*why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
>
>The candidates fell into three categories:
Okay, let's get out the checklist...
>abusive posters;
<checking> Nope, I'm not in Kate's killfile
>bigots,
<checking> Nope, I'm not in Kate's killfile
>bores.
<checking> D'OH!
<G>
--
James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /~~~\' Mortice Kern Systems
e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\ `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
or the...@golden.net________/ | //_// \\|\___/ Canada
or visit my web-site at http://www.u36.com/james/file.htm
Christopher Norman
The Admiral wrote:
>
> In article <56tidb$8...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu> cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8) writes:
> |We mustn't bash doctors at all. Or Doctors for that matter. A
> |hardworking bunch, all of 'em.
>
> Mustn't bash Doctors, but doctors...? Well, the doctor community as a
> whole are a hardworking bunch, but some of the individuals deserve
> a good bashing. (I know my Spousal Overunit [TM by JMS] would like
> to bash a few of 'em and she's working on her MD & PhD right now...)
>
> To get back to that original thread, personally, I'm rather fond of
> both "Silurians" and Pertwee. I just adore the Pertwee era and have
> a really hard time understanding how some people can bash Pertwee
> and defend "The Happiness Patrol" or "Paradise Towers" or "Survival"
> in the same sentence.
Cos those stories are good and "The Time Monster" and
"Monster of Peladon" and "The Mutants" and "Death to the
Daleks" and "Planet of the Daleks" and "Day of the Daleks"
and "The Sea Devils" suck.
Har-de-har-har!
Christopher Norman
Jen
In article <848691...@tooon.demon.co.uk>, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <5735gf$a...@decius.ultra.net> jsh...@ultranet.com "Leviathan"
writes:
>> I think Kate's point is that, just because somebody has something to
say, she
>> doesn't have to listen to 'em. SUrely thta's a fundimental freedom too?
>
> Yes...
>
>> I stand by my criticism of using the kill-file as a passive-aggressive
attack,
>> but, good grief, Keith, is it your position that I've got some
responsibility
>> to read every post in RADW?
>
> Yes; if you by the film, you watch all the scenes, surely?
Ah ah ah... you don't have to watch what you don't want to watch, or read
what you don't want to read. You can, because you have the freedom, but
you have the freedom to ignore what you please, as well. I used to be very
into trying to keep up with this group in detail, to read every post I
could. I have no time for that anymore. There's such a thing as "a life"
:-), not to mention wanting to do other things online than just read this
group. yikes. There are arguments I don't want to have anymore, and
frankly the kill-file helps me avoid certain posters and/or subjects that
might entrap me in that. Say it helps keep me out of trouble. :-) And then
I don't read most of what's left after the filtering, these days... tend
to concentrate on what certain people are saying.
>> How about the rest of the net? Where does it end?
>
> It ends where you want it to end (sorry, that sounds like the kind of thing
> somebody would say in a bad Michael Cimino film...)
Then it ends with reading what you want to, not reading what you don't.
>> Keith, a kill file doesn't take away _anybody's_ freedom of speech. Neither
>> does anyone's freedom of speech imply that anybody has an obligation to pay
>> attention.
>
> But where does *that* all end? "I shan't listen to this party political
> broadcast, it's full of bigots and bores".
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm fed up with fandom elitism, and fan
gods/goddesses who think their every word is law, etc., etc. It's total
politics, and I hate politics. No human is *that* superior, in my view.
Oh well. I'm too tired to think clearly anymore tonight...
Jonathan Blum
In article <848691...@tooon.demon.co.uk>,
Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5735gf$a...@decius.ultra.net> jsh...@ultranet.com "Leviathan" writes:
>> I stand by my criticism of using the kill-file as a passive-aggressive attack,
>> but, good grief, Keith, is it your position that I've got some responsibility
>> to read every post in RADW?
>Yes; if you by the film, you watch all the scenes, surely?
Keith, when you're at Tavern, do you try to listen to every single word of
every single conversation going on at once? Even the people who aren't
talking about anything to do with Who anymore?
If so, then you're a better man than I...
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Jonathan Blum
In article <848619...@tooon.demon.co.uk>,
Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <570bct$o...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
> kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au "Kate Orman" writes:
>> bores.
>> equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
>Kate, I've got to say this. For somebody who I've got a lot of time for,
>I find that statement to be *hideous*. I'm serious. That's just about the
>most arrogant thing I've ever heard anybody say on this, or any other
>subject. What gives you the right to judge somebody's worth by something
>as artificial as posts to newsgroups? Abusive posters? Fine, they ask for
>it by their actions. But, bigots and bores? Both are in the eye of the
>beholder, surely?
I think I see part of the confusion here. Kate isn't saying that, if she
ever meets some of the people she killfiled at a party, she'd snub them.
She's saying that if radw *were* a party, and these people were acting the
way they did, she'd ignore them. If they behave badly on the net, she
ignores them on the net. If they bore her on the net, she ignores them on
the net. They may be charming people in person, but if the stuff they
post here isn't charming, why should she have to bother reading it?
> I've never kill-filed anybody; God knows, I've thought about it a few
>times, but if you kill free speech (no matter how loony it is) they you're
>only one step away from burning books in the streets and locking up
>dissidents.
Killfiling someone doesn't affect their free speech. They can go right on
talking, but we just don't have to listen to them. It's like at a family
dinner, when my uncle Roy starts trying to provoke a massive political
argument... I usually get up and leave the room rather than get drawn
into it. I could spend time arguing against him, but I know he's never
going to listen to me, and he's really only trying to get a rise out of
me, and I've got better things to do than to rise to his bait. So I
ignore him. Either that, or I throw a lampshade on my head and tapdance
on the table to distract people before things get ugly...
Regards,
Jon Blum
(who doesn't have a killfile, but who zaps boring threads in trn)
Kate Orman
In article <848619...@tooon.demon.co.uk>,
Keith Topping <Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <570bct$o...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
> kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au "Kate Orman" writes:
>
>> The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
>> bores.
>> I'd move away from those people at a party. Here on the net, I feel
>> equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
>
>Kate, I've got to say this. For somebody who I've got a lot of time for,
>I find that statement to be *hideous*. I'm serious. That's just about the
>most arrogant thing I've ever heard anybody say on this, or any other
>subject. What gives you the right to judge somebody's worth by something
>as artificial as posts to newsgroups? Abusive posters? Fine, they ask for
>it by their actions. But, bigots and bores? Both are in the eye of the
>beholder, surely?
This criticism doesn't make sense. Keith, are you sure you understand
what a KILL file does?
My KILL file doesn't affect anyone else's choice of which threads and
posters they read. It only filters out stuff *I* don't want to read.
It doesn't somehow annihilate postings from cyberspace - it just zaps them
when I start up my newsreader, marking them as "already read", so I don't
have to waste time wading through them.
> Hey, look, you might have had a bad day when you wrote that, but if not
>and you're serious, then you've (sadly) got an attitude problem.
> I've never kill-filed anybody; God knows, I've thought about it a few
>times, but if you kill free speech (no matter how loony it is) they you're
>only one step away from burning books in the streets and locking up
>dissidents. Sorry, but it's the way I feel.
That means that you're a censor for not having read every single book in
your local library. The newspapers you don't read are denied their freedom
of speech. Unless you read *every* one of the thousands of newsgroups on
Usenet, you're only one step away from banning those groups. And so forth.
Freedom of speech also means the freedom to choose what we do and don't
read. Choosing not to read a book is not the same as banning or burning
that book.
--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman
Kate Orman
In article <571ark$t...@decius.ultra.net>,
Leviathan <jsh...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>In article <570bct$o...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>says...
>>In article <56usu0$6...@decius.ultra.net>,
>>Leviathan <jsh...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>>But I can't help but think, with every colorful little "Plonk" or "Thwunk,"
>>>that I'm witnessing the 'net equivalent of someone sticking hir fingers in hir
>>>ears and going "DA-DA-DA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA!" or some similar
>>>kindergarten-era behavior.
>>I recently "cleaned out" my KILL file, using Deja News to puzzle out
>>*why* I'd KILL filed certain people in the first place.
>>
>>The candidates fell into three categories: abusive posters; bigots; and
>>bores.
>>
>>I'd move away from those people at a party. Here on the net, I feel
>>equally disinclined to waste my time on 'em.
>I don't disagree even remotely. There's nothing wrong with socializing with
>those who you enjoy, and not with those you don't. (Hell, I don't read even
>close to a majority of posts here. I couldn't keep up. I read published
>authors [more likely to say something worth reading] and Jon Blum, who I
>started reading because I like his first name, and kept with because I like
>his posts. Others when they become part of a thread that caught my eye.
>
>What I'm talking about is making a point of telling the newsgroup at large
>that you've kill-filed somebody. I can see sending somebody e-mail to let 'em
>know you're all done with 'em, so they don't keep trying to continue the
>argument.
>
>But the publicly-posted "Plonk!" still strikes me as I posted previously.
I could replace the word "THWUNK!" with "You're a bigot, sir, and I refuse
to have anything further to do with you," or "I'm tired of wasting my time
responsing to your abuse."
The effect would be the same - a public statement that I won't tolerate
their garbage, followed by an extended silence. :-) Hopefully it'll
encourage other people to quit wasting time and bandwidth on them too.
I don't KILL file people merely for being a bit provocative, or because I
disagree with them - that *would* be the equivalent of sticking my fingers
in my ears and shouting. :-) And I don't announce that I'm zapping people
who are merely boring.
I haven't actually seen a lot of KILL filing going on - I assume that the
people who habitually zap others because they disagree with them, or
because they're in a snit, are amongst those I've already zapped myself.
:-)
Leviathan
In article <848691...@tooon.demon.co.uk>, Ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk says...
>> doesn't have to listen to 'em. SUrely thta's a fundimental freedom too?
>
>Yes...
>
>> but, good grief, Keith, is it your position that I've got some responsibility
>> to read every post in RADW?
>
>Yes; if you by the film, you watch all the scenes, surely?
But if I buy a newspaper or magazine, I don't necessaruly read it from cover.
>> How about the rest of the net? Where does it end?
>
>It ends where you want it to end (sorry, that sounds like the kind of thing
>somebody would say in a bad Michael Cimino film...)
I've already said where _I_ want it to end. I'm asking where _you_ want it to end.
Do _you_ read every post in RADW? (If so, you might not want to mention that to Nuala
when Deadline time rolls around!)
;^)
>> Keith, a kill file doesn't take away _anybody's_ freedom of speech. Neither
>> does anyone's freedom of speech imply that anybody has an obligation to pay
>> attention.
>
>But where does *that* all end? "I shan't listen to this party political
>broadcast, it's full of bigots and bores".
Then you've watched all the various party's political broadcasts, I take it? Where does
the Blancmange-throwing party stand on military expenditures? How much neo-Nazi
literature did you read before deciding they weren't the party for you?
Or, not to put too fine a point on it, how much that opffends or bores you do you
willingly read/watch/listen to, etc.?
> Wedge, thin end of. Slippery slope, down the...
>
>--
> Keith === Net Day 370
>
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
Jason A. Miller
star...@eskimo.com (The Admiral) writes:
>I still love to fantasize about the timeline in which Colin Baker's
>Doctor is the Doctor in all of Tom Baker's stories. :-)
I'm sorry, Chris, but I *really* thought the brain surgery
had been a complete success.
But like a malignant tumor, that Colinitis must've completely
grown back within the last three months :>
--
% Jason A. Miller % jmil...@uoft02.utoledo.edu %
% "some doctor guy" % Nielsen Ratings family! %
% "Beverly Hills, 90210" is meant to be viewed alone. In %
% fact, it gives me an opportunity to pretend I'm one of the %
% 90210 gang." -- Howard Stern %
Leviathan
In article <575lcp$a...@mocha.eng.umd.edu>, jb...@Glue.umd.edu says...
>It's like at a family dinner, when my uncle Roy starts trying to
>provoke a massive political argument... I usually get up and leave the room
>rather than get drawn into it. I could spend time arguing against him, but
>I know he's never going to listen to me, and he's really only trying to get
>a rise out of me, and I've got better things to do than to rise to his bait.
Two Words: John Peel[*]
>So I ignore him. Either that, or I throw a lampshade on my head and tapdance
>on the table to distract people before things get ugly...
Uhmmm.... Define "Before."
--
Jonathan Andrew "Some Good-Naturedly Ribbing Guy" Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@ma.ultranet.com
"I ain't gonna pay no dollar for a corn muffin that's half-dough!"
-- Kevin Kling
[*] I Like John, I really do, but it's become clear to me long ago
that there's no point in arguing with him. He's too busy having fun
with wordplay, and not willing to be swayed from previously held
positions. No purpose (unless you count the joys of linguistic
jousting, as John seems to {and there's nothing wrong with that.})
can possibly be served.
Alden Bates
"E.G. Clayton" (cla...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu) writes:
>On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Alden Bates wrote:
>> "McCoy is shit" for instance, ought to be phrased, "I didn't like
>> McCoy's protrayal of the Doctor."
>
>Your rephrasing of the statement about McCoy ought to be acceptable to
>just about everyone, but I suspect it doesn't contain enough venom to
>allow people of an uncommonly snide persuasion to properly vent their
>bitterness!
We don't _need_ bitterness on this newsgroup. We don't need people
putting down actors, characters and stories in violent and snide
ways...
If they want to vent their bitterness in a venomous way, they
shouldn't do it here.
I agree totally with your statement that adding 'IMHO' does little
to decrease the impact the phrase "McCoy is shit" has on his fans.
Alden Bates. (Who finds his enjoyment of the group drops
considerably when people state nasty things like that.)
--
_ _ _ __ al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz|http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~bates
/.\| | | .\ "That's a daft idea." |Go on, you know you want to.
| .< If a UFO crashes in the woods, and there's no one around
|_|_|_|_|__. to hear it, is there a government conspiracy?
Keith Topping
In article <575htt$1...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au "Kate Orman" writes:
>>Kate, I've got to say this. For somebody who I've got a lot of time for,
>>I find that statement to be *hideous*. I'm serious. That's just about the
>>most arrogant thing I've ever heard anybody say on this, or any other
>>subject. What gives you the right to judge somebody's worth by something
>>as artificial as posts to newsgroups? Abusive posters? Fine, they ask for
>>it by their actions. But, bigots and bores? Both are in the eye of the
>>beholder, surely?
> This criticism doesn't make sense. Keith, are you sure you understand
> what a KILL file does?
Yes, it's the technological equivilant of putting your hands over your
ears and shouting "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU"!
> My KILL file doesn't affect anyone else's choice of which threads and
> posters they read. It only filters out stuff *I* don't want to read.
Exactly. My whole point. *You* make a choice not to listen to somebody
because *you* consider them to be abusive, or bigots, or "bores" (I think
it's the last that concerns me most). What I want to know is what criteria
you use to do this, and whether you believe that something as artificial and
"acted" (for want of a better word) as this forum is a suitable vehicle
to say "hey, you're a mong, matey, I'm not gonna listen to you".
As I've said before, I'm the last person in the world to start dribbling
on about peace-lurv-and-harmoney-yeh, but if we stop listening to each other
we lose something basic. Isn't the whole credo of the Doctor just that -
try talking to each other and you might work it out...
Anyway...
>> Hey, look, you might have had a bad day when you wrote that, but if not
>> and you're serious, then you've (sadly) got an attitude problem.
>> I've never kill-filed anybody; God knows, I've thought about it a few
>> times, but if you kill free speech (no matter how loony it is) they you're
>> only one step away from burning books in the streets and locking up
>> dissidents. Sorry, but it's the way I feel.
> That means that you're a censor for not having read every single book in
> your local library. The newspapers you don't read are denied their freedom
> of speech. Unless you read *every* one of the thousands of newsgroups on
> Usenet, you're only one step away from banning those groups. And so forth.
No, no, no, no. That's a completely different argument. Look, you do what
you want, read what you want to read, and say what you want to say - you'll
get no argument from me. All I'm saying is that by crowing about the number
and type of person you stick in your kill-file (which you were), you diminish
yourself as a person in the eys of others. Kill-filing is something that
should be done a) in a very last resort, and b) in quiet.
Arse - this is pointless. End of argument.
--
Keith === Net Day 371