There is a world of difference between not-liking someone and personally attacking someone ...
Absolutely true. And if one wanted to attack Craig, this was the place to do it. Repeatedly. With as big a stick as possible. That did change over time, granted, but open season lasted well into '06...I think Simon's anti-Caig bashing banner first appeared in February? March? Not sure the exact timeline, just my recollection of how things went back then. I think the "I apologize to Craig" thread appeared mid-summer...?
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,934Chief of Staff
Not really sure that's true- you just have to have a look at the thread of the day of his announcement: other forums were much more balanced but for whatever reason, it was pretty heavy going against Craig here. Thus AJB did get a bit of a name as an anti site. That's not to do with anyone who runs it, just that the conversations tended to drift that way- there's no need to be offended by what people thought of the site when it doesn't have a strict editorial voice.
AJB was never an anti-Craig site, if that was your (and other peoples) perception, then it was/is a shame.
One thing I will add though is that other Bond sites didn't allow, in fact they banned, any anti-Craig feeling - we didn't, and perhaps that's why those who opposed Craig posted here.
At AJB we try and take a balanced view and let all parties have their say - sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
Simon had a banner posted on the front page for a couple months, saying stop the Craig bashing or else. No other fan site took (or found themselves in the position to take) such an action. Craig-hate was the driving force of the day on AJB, back then--how could that not be the perception, when such action needed to be taken against it?
I do know that other fan sites took action against the more vitrolic anti-Craigers (as we did) - such as bannings, asking people to stop, calm down and taking a very positive pro-Craig stance.
And, AJB may not have been in danger of shutting down, but Simon posted more than once how sick and tired of this place he'd become, and that it had indeed crossed his mind to close the place down.
Trust me, we all got pretty p!ssed off at the time - we weren't having fun anymore and that's the reason we all come here - isn't it ?
There is a world of difference between not-liking someone and personally attacking someone - I stand by my comment that certain sites banned anti-Craig comments - perhaps feelings was too vague and open to misinterpretation,
Fair enough- yes. If you mean attacking personally then there's no reason any forum should allow personal attacks against anyone. To be honest, I'm not sure AJB allowing personal attacks, if that's indeed what you mean by 'anti-Craig feelings' would be a good thing. But I don't mean to criticise the mod-ing around here; I can appreciate it's a tough call. Just that, as I said at the time, I would have thought that encouraging personal attacks against anyone would be a bad thing.
I'm not spreading any falsehoods about other sites - please remember there are other Bond sites than CBn, I presume that is the site you are alluding too ?
Yes indeed- a lot of people allude to CBn as 'other sites' around here before they slag it off; apologies for misinterpreting you again.
Out of interest; which sites did do that?
Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig.
Hmm- that sounds a bit negative. As if a Bond fan site being optimistic about the new James Bond is a bad thing; I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by 'pro-active'?
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,934Chief of Staff
There is a world of difference between not-liking someone and personally attacking someone ...
Absolutely true. And if one wanted to attack Craig, this was the place to do it. Repeatedly. With as big a stick as possible. That did change over time, granted, but open season lasted well into '06...I think Simon's anti-Caig bashing banner first appeared in February? March? Not sure the exact timeline, just my recollection of how things went back then. I think the "I apologize to Craig" thread appeared mid-summer...?
Perhaps your semi-correct, that's as much as your getting
Surely the best place was CNB ? And only because we tried to let discussion flow and it can be difficult if the discussion is 90% one way.
For the record, I was in the not-sure, but willing to give him a go camp - that was until the anti-Craig brigade got started and then I moved into the pro-Craig camp.
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,934Chief of Staff
There is a world of difference between not-liking someone and personally attacking someone - I stand by my comment that certain sites banned anti-Craig comments - perhaps feelings was too vague and open to misinterpretation,
Fair enough- yes. If you mean attacking personally then there's no reason any forum should allow personal attacks against anyone. To be honest, I'm not sure AJB allowing personal attacks, if that's indeed what you mean by 'anti-Craig feelings' would be a good thing. But I don't mean to criticise the mod-ing around here; I can appreciate it's a tough call. Just that, as I said at the time, I would have thought that encouraging personal attacks against anyone would be a bad thing.
Mod-ing can be a very tough call, sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't - but the pays good
I'm know AJB didn't encourage any personal attacks - or am I missing something ?
I'm not spreading any falsehoods about other sites - please remember there are other Bond sites than CBn, I presume that is the site you are alluding too ?
Yes indeed- a lot of people allude to CBn as 'other sites' around here before they slag it off; apologies for misinterpreting you again.
Out of interest; which sites did do that?
I have never slagged-off CBn - I am also a member there and I respect their policy/views/rules.
Sorry - I refuse to comment/tell tales on other sites, I'd hate to lose the trust of those people, I'm sure you understand.
Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig.
Hmm- that sounds a bit negative. As if a Bond fan site being optimistic about the new James Bond is a bad thing; I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by 'pro-active'?
I think your grasping at the wrong end of the stick a bit. By pro-active I mean that certain sites clamped down on negative Craig posts and actively promoted him in a very positive way - nothing wrong with that in my book.
I'm know AJB didn't encourage any personal attacks - or am I missing something ?
Yeah- to be honest I'd say having that thread up and letting the members post pictures of Craig as a potatohead etc. was encouraging personal attacks. Harmsway said that Ali Kerim Bay was booted off for doing that, but he wasn't really. It took a long time and the mods even defended that thread- I just had a look at it and it's horrible, frankly. I really don't see the difference between attacking someone on or off the forum; the same nasty, viscious atmosphere is created by both.
Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig.
Hmm- that sounds a bit negative. As if a Bond fan site being optimistic about the new James Bond is a bad thing; I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by 'pro-active'?
I think your grasping at the wrong end of the stick a bit. By pro-active I mean that certain sites clamped down on negative Craig posts and actively promoted him in a very positive way - nothing wrong with that in my book.
The word 'although' does make it sound otherwise, but fair enough.
I see again, although we're talking about CBn, you've used the phrase 'certain sites'! Are you sure you're being open as to your meaning?
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,934Chief of Staff
Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig.
Hmm- that sounds a bit negative. As if a Bond fan site being optimistic about the new James Bond is a bad thing; I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by 'pro-active'?
I think your grasping at the wrong end of the stick a bit. By pro-active I mean that certain sites clamped down on negative Craig posts and actively promoted him in a very positive way - nothing wrong with that in my book.
The word 'although' does make it sound otherwise, but fair enough.
I see again, although we're talking about CBn, you've used the phrase 'certain sites'! Are you sure you're being open as to your meaning?
I am.
You are the one talking about CBn - I only mentioned them in response to your comment/query.
Harmsway said that Ali Kerim Bay was booted off for doing that, but he wasn't really.
And now you're going to tell me why he was booted off then ?
Well of course he was, but also because he had been offensive towards people on here- those were the reasons given. But it took a long time to do it; how many pages of Craig as a monkey had been placed up there before he got kicked off? That made it seem as if just making horrible personal attacks aren't enough to get you booted off, if you see what I mean.
Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig.
Hmm- that sounds a bit negative. As if a Bond fan site being optimistic about the new James Bond is a bad thing; I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by 'pro-active'?
I think your grasping at the wrong end of the stick a bit. By pro-active I mean that certain sites clamped down on negative Craig posts and actively promoted him in a very positive way - nothing wrong with that in my book.
The word 'although' does make it sound otherwise, but fair enough.
I see again, although we're talking about CBn, you've used the phrase 'certain sites'! Are you sure you're being open as to your meaning?
I am.
You are the one talking about CBn - I only mentioned them in response to your comment/query.[/quote]
Err... no: your phrasing was: "please remember there are other Bond sites than CBn, I presume that is the site you are alluding too ? Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig." You were talking about CBn when you called them 'pro-active'. I asked about your use of 'pro-active' with regards to CBn; that's what we were talking about, surely? I think we're drifting from the point slightly!
emtiem...My God....can you ever let ANYTHING go?? ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! You even have to hijack a thread about the LACK OF WOMEN here, and miss the point completely!
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
I think it's safe to say that certain members around here "have a highly developed sense of, shall we say drama?"
My friends, enough with the personal attacks. Nothing good ever comes out of them, especially around here. I don't want to lose anymore of our prominent members.
Discussion prior to the release of CR was definitely not our finest hour. But let us all take a lesson from Vesper and take off our "Algerian love knots," and "realize that sometimes we can forget the past."
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
emtiem...My God....can you ever let ANYTHING go?? ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! You even have to hijack a thread about the LACK OF WOMEN here, and miss the point completely!
Yeah- that's the sort of viciousness I was talking about!
Seems the atmosphere of attacking one another is still around 8-)
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Emtiem, you must be joking. 8-)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Just read the last couple of pages. Wow
Most instructive---yet somehow apt---that the "Lack of Women on AJB" thread evolved into the "Lack of Women in the Lack of Women on AJB" thread...until Mo came in and, like any good referee, blew the whistle )
Love ya Mo :x All the more reason you daren't go anywhere...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hmmm... must've missed something. Miles and I have a brief civil conversation which both of us agreed had gone off on a bit of a tangent and tailed off, Monique wades in shouting the odds in an agressive manner after the event, and that's a good thing, apparently.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Well apparently your definition of 'brief civil discussion' clashes with ours.
Holy cow, I can't believe people spent so much of their weekend time posting such drivel.
We may have a "lack of women on AJB" but we certainly don't have a lack of paranoids. 8-)
emtiem and blueman, you guys clearly have a lot of time on your hands. You are certainly civil, but even more certain is that you are tedious...unbelievably so. [insert yawn smiley here]
FYI, since "site bias" is in the eye of the beholder, allow to share my perspective...I didn't even know who Daniel Craig was when he was cast, so I took the wait-and-see approach. There were plenty of anti-Craigers who weren't shy about sharing there views, yet not once did I ever feel this place was taking on an anti-Craig bias overall, only that . My solution was to avoid the CR forum altogether...gee, what a novel concept.
Well apparently your definition of 'brief civil discussion' clashes with ours.
You could explain...? So this obviously terrible incident of a conversation never happens again..?
Why on earth all this complaining about a conversation in which none of the participants were offended and which reached a natural conclusion? Nobody made you read it; and now it's been replaced by an even more tedious debate about the conversation you all thought was tedious! Talk about ridiculous!
Well apparently your definition of 'brief civil discussion' clashes with ours.
You could explain...? So this obviously terrible incident of a conversation never happens again..?
Why on earth all this complaining about a conversation in which none of the participants were offended and which reached a natural conclusion? Nobody made you read it; and now it's been replaced by an even more tedious debate about the conversation you all thought was tedious! Talk about ridiculous!
Sure, I'll explain. I think Monique's description of "hijacking a thread" fits quite well. A thread about Lack of Women on AJB has nothing to do with how hostile the site was against Craig, and certainly does not warrant a one page, heated argument with Sir Miles, who obviously took what you said personally when you should've just dropped it.
I mean, really, what is the purpose of arguing over such trivial things? Who CARES what the atmosphere was a year ago, and why do we need to talk about it at such lengths?
Just save us all time next time you want to argue over pointless crap- do it via PM.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,934Chief of Staff
Holy cow, I can't believe people spent so much of their weekend time posting such drivel.
Thats the very thing I thought when I finally logged-off - having missed the start time of a film I wanted to watch
If either blueman or emtiem want to contiue then just pm me.
Last word for here on this side-topic, and I mean it - I mentioned CBn emtiem because I know you are an active member there and that that was the site you where thinking of when you accused me of spreading lies. Now please, pm only !
This is the second time I heard reference to this. I take it you're referring to the message that everyone should stop slagging off on each other and be more respectful of other opinions, else the CR forum (and not all of AJB) might be shut down?
Sure, I'll explain. I think Monique's description of "hijacking a thread" fits quite well. A thread about Lack of Women on AJB has nothing to do with how hostile the site was against Craig, and certainly does not warrant a one page, heated argument with Sir Miles, who obviously took what you said personally when you should've just dropped it.
As Hardyboy has thought it right to mention this again, I just want to say that I didn't feel at all 'heated' during our little discussion- if Sir Miles did then I apologise, but even re-reading it he seems to be taking it all pretty calmly; which is certainly the manner I was discussing things in.
I genuinely don't understand what's going on here. I get shouted at for 'hijacking the thread' by a member who hasn't even been in here to talk about the subject. It was a conversation which evolved naturally from the discussion subject; that's how conversations work, isn't it?
I mean, really, what is the purpose of arguing over such trivial things? Who CARES what the atmosphere was a year ago, and why do we need to talk about it at such lengths?
Who cares about the lack of women on an internet board? Who cares what reasons there are for it? Who cares about the most trivial details of the Bond films which we discuss all of the time on here? We come here to talk about nothing much and not get upset about it, don't we?
As Hardyboy has thought it right to mention this again
Hardy was asking a specific question, for which he was wanting a specific answer (and has since got one in the mod forum anyway) about a banner, not the topic that Sir M called a halt to.
Know when to shut up, and when a line is drawn by a moderator such as Sir M then that's as good a hint as any.
And if that's not a strong enough hint for anyone to heed the moderator's warning, then the next one to drag it up can go and stick their head in the sand for a couple of weeks until their account is back up and running, as it will be disabled.
Comments
Absolutely true. And if one wanted to attack Craig, this was the place to do it. Repeatedly. With as big a stick as possible. That did change over time, granted, but open season lasted well into '06...I think Simon's anti-Caig bashing banner first appeared in February? March? Not sure the exact timeline, just my recollection of how things went back then. I think the "I apologize to Craig" thread appeared mid-summer...?
I do know that other fan sites took action against the more vitrolic anti-Craigers (as we did) - such as bannings, asking people to stop, calm down and taking a very positive pro-Craig stance.
Trust me, we all got pretty p!ssed off at the time - we weren't having fun anymore and that's the reason we all come here - isn't it ?
Fair enough- yes. If you mean attacking personally then there's no reason any forum should allow personal attacks against anyone. To be honest, I'm not sure AJB allowing personal attacks, if that's indeed what you mean by 'anti-Craig feelings' would be a good thing. But I don't mean to criticise the mod-ing around here; I can appreciate it's a tough call. Just that, as I said at the time, I would have thought that encouraging personal attacks against anyone would be a bad thing.
Yes indeed- a lot of people allude to CBn as 'other sites' around here before they slag it off; apologies for misinterpreting you again.
Out of interest; which sites did do that?
Hmm- that sounds a bit negative. As if a Bond fan site being optimistic about the new James Bond is a bad thing; I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by 'pro-active'?
Perhaps your semi-correct, that's as much as your getting
Surely the best place was CNB ? And only because we tried to let discussion flow and it can be difficult if the discussion is 90% one way.
For the record, I was in the not-sure, but willing to give him a go camp - that was until the anti-Craig brigade got started and then I moved into the pro-Craig camp.
Mod-ing can be a very tough call, sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't - but the pays good
I'm know AJB didn't encourage any personal attacks - or am I missing something ?
I have never slagged-off CBn - I am also a member there and I respect their policy/views/rules.
Sorry - I refuse to comment/tell tales on other sites, I'd hate to lose the trust of those people, I'm sure you understand.
I think your grasping at the wrong end of the stick a bit. By pro-active I mean that certain sites clamped down on negative Craig posts and actively promoted him in a very positive way - nothing wrong with that in my book.
Yeah- to be honest I'd say having that thread up and letting the members post pictures of Craig as a potatohead etc. was encouraging personal attacks. Harmsway said that Ali Kerim Bay was booted off for doing that, but he wasn't really. It took a long time and the mods even defended that thread- I just had a look at it and it's horrible, frankly. I really don't see the difference between attacking someone on or off the forum; the same nasty, viscious atmosphere is created by both.
The word 'although' does make it sound otherwise, but fair enough.
I see again, although we're talking about CBn, you've used the phrase 'certain sites'! Are you sure you're being open as to your meaning?
And now you're going to tell me why he was booted off then ?
I am.
You are the one talking about CBn - I only mentioned them in response to your comment/query.
This really has veered wildly off-topic now.
Well of course he was, but also because he had been offensive towards people on here- those were the reasons given. But it took a long time to do it; how many pages of Craig as a monkey had been placed up there before he got kicked off? That made it seem as if just making horrible personal attacks aren't enough to get you booted off, if you see what I mean.
I am.
You are the one talking about CBn - I only mentioned them in response to your comment/query.[/quote]
Err... no: your phrasing was: "please remember there are other Bond sites than CBn, I presume that is the site you are alluding too ? Although they did take a very pro-active stance in the promotion of Craig." You were talking about CBn when you called them 'pro-active'. I asked about your use of 'pro-active' with regards to CBn; that's what we were talking about, surely? I think we're drifting from the point slightly!
My friends, enough with the personal attacks. Nothing good ever comes out of them, especially around here. I don't want to lose anymore of our prominent members.
Discussion prior to the release of CR was definitely not our finest hour. But let us all take a lesson from Vesper and take off our "Algerian love knots," and "realize that sometimes we can forget the past."
-Roger Moore
Yeah- that's the sort of viciousness I was talking about!
Seems the atmosphere of attacking one another is still around 8-)
Most instructive---yet somehow apt---that the "Lack of Women on AJB" thread evolved into the "Lack of Women in the Lack of Women on AJB" thread...until Mo came in and, like any good referee, blew the whistle
Love ya Mo :x All the more reason you daren't go anywhere...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
oh shhh...you know I can't spell....:D
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
We may have a "lack of women on AJB" but we certainly don't have a lack of paranoids. 8-)
emtiem and blueman, you guys clearly have a lot of time on your hands. You are certainly civil, but even more certain is that you are tedious...unbelievably so. [insert yawn smiley here]
FYI, since "site bias" is in the eye of the beholder, allow to share my perspective...I didn't even know who Daniel Craig was when he was cast, so I took the wait-and-see approach. There were plenty of anti-Craigers who weren't shy about sharing there views, yet not once did I ever feel this place was taking on an anti-Craig bias overall, only that . My solution was to avoid the CR forum altogether...gee, what a novel concept.
You could explain...? So this obviously terrible incident of a conversation never happens again..?
Why on earth all this complaining about a conversation in which none of the participants were offended and which reached a natural conclusion? Nobody made you read it; and now it's been replaced by an even more tedious debate about the conversation you all thought was tedious! Talk about ridiculous!
Hmm... in a bit of a glass house, there.
Sure, I'll explain. I think Monique's description of "hijacking a thread" fits quite well. A thread about Lack of Women on AJB has nothing to do with how hostile the site was against Craig, and certainly does not warrant a one page, heated argument with Sir Miles, who obviously took what you said personally when you should've just dropped it.
I mean, really, what is the purpose of arguing over such trivial things? Who CARES what the atmosphere was a year ago, and why do we need to talk about it at such lengths?
Just save us all time next time you want to argue over pointless crap- do it via PM.
Thats the very thing I thought when I finally logged-off - having missed the start time of a film I wanted to watch
If either blueman or emtiem want to contiue then just pm me.
Last word for here on this side-topic, and I mean it - I mentioned CBn emtiem because I know you are an active member there and that that was the site you where thinking of when you accused me of spreading lies. Now please, pm only !
Are you trying to tell us something darenhat? Did you have an operation at some point in your past? Did you used to be... deirdrehat?
@merseytart
This is the second time I heard reference to this. I take it you're referring to the message that everyone should stop slagging off on each other and be more respectful of other opinions, else the CR forum (and not all of AJB) might be shut down?
Not quite. I was merely alluding to my very resistable charm.
I sympathize with you darenhat. Women and I go together like similar poles on a magnet.
I cannot let you take all the blame.
-Roger Moore
As Hardyboy has thought it right to mention this again, I just want to say that I didn't feel at all 'heated' during our little discussion- if Sir Miles did then I apologise, but even re-reading it he seems to be taking it all pretty calmly; which is certainly the manner I was discussing things in.
I genuinely don't understand what's going on here. I get shouted at for 'hijacking the thread' by a member who hasn't even been in here to talk about the subject. It was a conversation which evolved naturally from the discussion subject; that's how conversations work, isn't it?
Who cares about the lack of women on an internet board? Who cares what reasons there are for it? Who cares about the most trivial details of the Bond films which we discuss all of the time on here? We come here to talk about nothing much and not get upset about it, don't we?
That would be the whole forum over PM, then!
Know when to shut up, and when a line is drawn by a moderator such as Sir M then that's as good a hint as any.
And if that's not a strong enough hint for anyone to heed the moderator's warning, then the next one to drag it up can go and stick their head in the sand for a couple of weeks until their account is back up and running, as it will be disabled.