Directors Guild of America-PJ

[Harad]

Oooh
Another dagger in the hearts of the film and PJ haters. PJ is nominated for best director by the Guild. Often a precursor for the Oscars. Other nominees: Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind), Baz Luhrmanmn (Moulin Rouge), Chistopher Nolan (Memento), and Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down).

Very fine company for PJ. (Memento was especially good.) Fine recognition for LOTR.

[bunnywhippit]

Well done PJ! When does the winner get announced?

[lilhobo]

well I for one do NOT think Pj deserves such an honour.....i think the movie deserves Best Movie in a BAD year.....BUT the movie could have been so much better. PJ tried to be EVERYTHING to EVERYONE, and the movie almost failed. A Few fine performances from Mckellen and holmes and Bean, customs and landscape....so an ensemble performance deserves a collective award

[ReadWryt]

I don't see where this is a stab in the heart to anybody but the loosers in the running, but then...I see it as an award from Directors for a Directing Job. Perhaps their perspective is that of looking at such a project, seeing what a seemingly insermountable task it was and then looking at what was produced and realizing that Jackson pulled off, in making his movie, what few others could have possibly done. Coordinating all of the wide range of personel, keeping schedules and deadlines in order...making certain that everything is where it needs to be when it is needed. This was a production that demanded a great deal from an individual, and even though he had staff working under him he still would have been the person who caught the heat if things didn't work out.

I don't see anything wrong with his peers looking up to him for having shot three very tough movies, and I'm certain that they are taking into account that his job is not finished still...I just think the man is a lying bag of bile (Euphemism altered as per isntruction from the Webmaster) as a person, a crappy screenplay author and a fat slob who couldn't even get a hair cut in time for the Golden Globes, I never said he was a bad director...

[lilhobo]

thats a bit harsh on PJ, given that u should look at his co-producers & screenplay writers, BOTH women :D and u wonder where Arwen came from????

However 1/3 o the movie is CGI, so u ave to wonder if PJ deserves anything....after all $US300 = $NZ 600

[Greenwood]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
I don't see anything wrong with his peers looking up to him for having shot three very tough movies, and I'm certain that they are taking into account that his job is not finished still...I just think the man is a lying sack of fecal matter as a person, a crappy screenplay author and a fat slob who couldn't even get a hair cut in time for the Golden Globes, I never said he was a bad director...

I thought we had a rule on the forum against personal attacks and insults? Shouln't this count as a strike under the three strikes you are out rule? Do personal attacks and insults only count under the rule if directed against a forum member? Or are moderators exempt from the rules of the forum?

Just seeking clarification of the rules.

[ReadWryt]

Greenwood,

As the Webmaster stated to me the other day, "An attack against a person is a personal attack, an attack against their post is not.".

When Peter Jackson starts an account I'll delete anything I have said that directly insults him, until then I have made no personal attack against any member of the Forum. As for your second question, no...if I were to call you names (Not that I would do so in a public post) or defame your lineage or accuse you personally of some action or physical condition I would be under the same rule as any other member on the Forum, I'm just a member that has to see every complaint, read every post (Moderators being the ONLY members who cannot use the Ignore List...an advantage other users have which I wish they would make use of) and do the scut work of moving misplaced threads, deleting advertisements, edit foul language and all the other things that come with taking on a voluntary position like this, but Moderators are NOT above the rules.

[Harad]

Greenwood,

In a similar fashion PJ will be deciding who wins the DGA award.

[Thrakerzog]

An attack against a person is a personal attack

Um, just because PJ doesn't post here doesn't mean he is not a person.
a lying sack of fecal matter as a person
This is most clearly an attack against a person and not a post.

I mean, by your own logic, I could write all sorts of rude and offensive things about your mother, but since she doesn't post here, it's a-ok! Right? Granted I keep the insults some how vaguely tied to the posts, which isn’t hard.

Anyway, those insults are you going beyond even the lines of the forum, much less decency, in your posts to once again make PJ look bad.

If you don't like the movie you can say so in a MUCH more powerful way if you don't resort to silly personal insults.

[Harad]

A cogent argument, Thrakerzog

Based upon the consideration of this argument I expect the perpetrator to ban himself and eliminate hundreds of his own posts.

[Greenwood]

Thank you Thrakerzog. You replied before I saw ReadWryt's flimsy argument (an attack against a post, not a person).

[lilhobo]

hey RW, this kind of left wing mentality has to stop, use and abuse that right wing power of deletion and ban these sons-of-poodles for good :D :D :D

[Harad]

Or maybe the rule is that you CAN attack other posters as long as you include

:) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek:

How silly of me not to know that.

[ReadWryt]

Once more a post takes a select segment of what someone said and twists it into a pretzel of convoluted non-logic. My statement "An attack against a person is a personal attack, an attack against their post is not." seems to have been convieniently whittled down to exclude the word "their", which explicitly implies that they have/can/do/would make posts themselves. Since Mr. Jackson has not stepped forward and cried foul against me I will assume that my last post will suffice to explain the situation nicely enough...

[Harad]

An attack against a person is a personal attack, an attack against their post is not

An attack against a person is a personal attack, an attack against post is not

Get it?

[Ancalagon]

If I were an innocent bystander, totally impartial and not in any way linked to the forum in the manner that I am - I might possibly have to concede that some members may have a fair point.

And if you are thinking about it: take your finger of that 'nuke' button! :)

[ReadWryt]

I have no nuke button, if that was directed to me. I cannot Delete users, nor do I have the time or the gumption to sit and systematically go through the entire forum deleting anybody's posts one at a time as some must think I have done. This is all about some member's personal vendetta against me, which is fine...I'm waiting for someone to report me to the Webmaster...I allready had him look at this, I told him about it and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it, so if someone wants to try to turn this into some sort of agenda or war..let them. They are alone on the battlefield...

[ReadWryt]

Actually, the Webmaster told me that my euphemism was too gross so I had to change it to "bag of bile as a person" at his request.

[Harad]

Well nice. That post is hereby reported. We shall see about the fairness doctrine.

[lilhobo]

so whingeing harad, maybe the heat id way too much ;)

[dapence]

Harad, what do you want? I'm not going to delete RW's account, so you can forget about it. I understand that your upset that your posts were deleted, but RW didn't do it. I don't want to hear any more about it -- period.

It's true that I don't want anyone personally attacking another member. I don't really want people simply attacking someone's post without something to back it up either. A post stating that another is 'inane,' without something to back that statement up is equally irritating to me.

That being said, I've done a little poking around, and it seems to me you tend to take nearly each opportunity you can to complain about someone attacking you or one of your posts. I'm beginning to believe that if you had your way, anybody who disagreed with you would be removed from this forum.

I'm told that you're someone who's earned a certain level of notoriety in your field. That's great, I'm glad. So have many of your fellow members.

I reinstated your account because I felt you had something to contribute to this site. I hope I wasn't mistaken.

[Ancalagon]

The mention of the 'nuke' button was a mere jest on my part RW, which I trust you found rather amusing. I think 'bag of bile', more eloquently describes your sentiment of a man whom I know you hold great affection for.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by webmaster

I'm told that you're someone who's earned a certain level of notoriety in your field. That's great, I'm glad. So have many of your fellow members.



i am sorry but the webmaster just falsely acussed me of notoriety, as well as the rest of the forum......he will have to delete his account and make me KING website master :D :D :D

[Thrakerzog]

webmaster,
We don't want Readwryt banned from the forums or his messages deleted. We just want him to play by the rules - at least as much as everyone else, and because he is a 'super moderator', maybe a bit more so.

As has been said before by Greenwood and others, when a new user comes here and sees the "super moderator" verbally bashing PJ in a great many of his posts, and most every thread on the board, it can give a really bad impression for the entire board.

And beyond simply leaving a bad taste, the rules clearly state that there should be no personal attacks.
No matter how Readwryt tries to twist the wording, calling someone a lying sack of fecal matter as a person or a fat slob are personal insults. It does not and should not matter if that person posts here, why should we be able to discriminate based solely on ownership of an account on this forum?

No, I think we need to raise the bar of decency on this board and not allow the anonymity provided allow us to abandon our social graces.

If this were the only post of this sort by Readwryt, it would perhaps be understandable - a venting of anger - but he goes down this road in just about every thread on the boards.

Readwryt,
An attack against a person is a personal attack, an attack against their post is not.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy here, but I'd put money on a bet that you pulled this quote out of context.
If you put the question asked with the reply given I bet you will find that the original question in no way indicated that the personal attacks might be toward "non-members" as you imply the answer covers.
Indeed, had you said something to the extent of, "is personally attacking someone that is not a member of the board a violation of the rules", you would have had a wholly different answer. It would have clearly stated what does or does not apply to non-members.
Instead, all we have is something that applies specifically to members. You quickly assume that since it specifically applies to members, it does NOT apply to non-members. I think your assumption is very wrong...

Instead it seems to me that the same standards should be applied to members and non-members alike unless it is clearly stated that they are to be treated differently - with less respect.

[Harad]

webmaster,

Its clear Readwryt will not be disciplined. Quite the contrary, he has been promoted.

As we discussed, the INCREDIBLE coincidence that he singled me out for "punishment" and my account alone was deleted as well as my posts and threads, apparently is just a coincindence. I wish my luck with lottery tickets were as fine, in the other direction.

I will not report any more posts, although I was requested to do so. However, it does no good. Contrary to the prior post, I would let everybody have their say. I am not the one who, in fact, suppressed another poster. That was somebody else.

[dapence]

1. RW has always been the head moderator. He was the first person I asked to fill that post. So he wasn't 'promoted.'

2. Your's was not the only account deleted, but you were the only one let back on -- guess that means you were the one to get 'special' treatment.

3. My no personal attack rule applies to attacks on forum members. The purpose of the no personal attack rule is to keep order. Though a personal attack upon a non-forum member may be improper, such an attack still wouldn't violate the no personal attack rule.

4. As RW stated, I told him to tone down his posts about Peter Jackson, so he's not above correction.

Finally, I will not be dictated to. I will not be told what I must do in order to 'prevent certain people from leaving the forum.' I mainly refer to several threatening PM's I've received concerning this subject. Frankly, if you don't like the way this forum is run, I suggest you find another.