hardyboy

alabamabondfan · March 2007

Well,I'm new to this board but I cannot imagine how you could close the topic and tell me to refer to an already existing thread.

Since most of these movies are decades old, wouldn't ALL the threads on this board be redundant???

What is the point of a message board if you decide what I should post and where I should post it?
I promise you if you'd have pinned that previous thread at the top I would have added to that discussion.

How hard is it to just not respond to a thread if you are bored with it? Or not interested in it....

?:)

I enjoyed JFF's response, though I didn't agree with a word of it. Who cares if its redundant?

JennyFlexFan · March 2007

Oh you liked my response? I actually thought it was a bit harsh (even for my standards) after I posted it.

And Hardy's just trying to make the forums a better place, he means well, really! We love him here.

Hardyboy · March 2007

alabamabondfan, you do NOT need to run things by me. The reason your topic was closed is because there's a nineteen page thread at the top of the CR forum specially for CR reviews. There aren't 20 other threads specifically for reviewing each and every film, which is why those reviews aren't redundant. I'm sorry you didn't like the tone I utilized in my post, but, cross my heart, I was as nice as I could be, and I even linked you to the proper thread.

As for JFF's reply, when someone takes the opportunity to make the same case every time someone mentions a particular film, it gets a bit old. But you're new here. You'll learn.

JennyFlexFan · March 2007

Believe me, he's making a point.

Even I agree with him on this one, I guarantee you will tire of me fast when anyone slanders AVTAK, GE or brings up how good CR or LTK are.

I'm a bit antagonistic but I think liked at the same time, when not going all AVTAK-preachy that is... hopefully.

alabamabondfan · March 2007

Cool, the thread isn't locked and I get to respond this time.......

I got your point hardy, I actually haven't even looked at the individual forums on this site, this is the only forum I've ever been to. Now I understand.

I was just coming back in here to edit the post and try to make it sound a little better. Didn't expect the quick responses. Sorry for the hostility.

JennyFlexFan · March 2007

Hardyboy wrote:

it gets a bit old. But you're new here. You'll learn.

But only a bit old... right?

Loeffelholz · March 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Hardyboy wrote:

it gets a bit old. But you're new here. You'll learn.

But only a bit old... right?

Riiiiight B-)

Dan Same · March 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

I'm a bit antagonistic but I think liked at the same time, when not going all AVTAK-preachy that is... hopefully.

JFF, although I completely disagree with you on AVTAK and TB, you are certainly liked by me.

I have to say, I may be in a minority here and I may have been brainwashed, but I always enjoy reading your pro-AVTAK/anti-CR rants. {[]

DAWUSS · April 2007

Do locked threads get deleted after a while? Just curious...

SiCo · April 2007

DAWUSS wrote:

Do locked threads get deleted after a while? Just curious...

Not at the moment, but they will be. Sometimes they are removed if they remain on the front page of any forum after a week or so.

DAWUSS · April 2007

SiCo wrote:

DAWUSS wrote:

Do locked threads get deleted after a while? Just curious...

Not at the moment, but they will be. Sometimes they are removed if they remain on the front page of any forum after a week or so.

I was just wondering, it would be kinda weird to see a huge collection of locked threads while digging through older posts.

I know I had mentioned merging threads way back when, but I have only the faintest idea of how those get organized...

darenhat · April 2007

Merging threads would be virtually impossible, I would imagine. Do you tack one thread at the end of the other? Or do you organize all the posts together by date and risk losing the coherency of the conversation?

My honest take is that if there's an old, duplicate thread, just trash it. It's not like what we post is going to save the world or something. We have plenty of current conversation to keep us sated, IMO.

DAWUSS · April 2007

darenhat wrote:

Merging threads would be virtually impossible, I would imagine. Do you tack one thread at the end of the other? Or do you organize all the posts together by date and risk losing the coherency of the conversation?

I think in most cases of duplicate threads (ie, the twin cousin is buried on Page 13 where no one tends to look), tacking one behind the other would work fairly smoothly.

And why do I get the feeling this one will soon get it's own padlock?

SiCo · April 2007

Merging is difficult as DarenHat has covered and it's unlikely it will ever be implemented. I may start to take the stance where by we only have upto x pages (4 maybe) and everything after that gets deleted?

The idea would be to keep the forum fresh and continually revolving, I know most people don't look past certain pages... It's only an idea and I'd like your thoguhts on it.

s96024 · April 2007

I agree. But sometimes there are old threads that I look at. Normally through gogole i'm searching and it directs me to an old thread on here. I suppose you can't really decide whats worth keeping and not, because that differes between individuals. Although totally useless threads could just be deleted rather than just closed.

Hardyboy · April 2007

SiCo wrote:

I may start to take the stance where by we only have upto x pages (4 maybe) and everything after that gets deleted?

Gadzooks, Si, I hope there'd be exceptions! I can't imagine Izzy Stuff being only four pages long! That's like shrinking a centerfold to a wallet-sized photo!

SiCo · April 2007

To clarify it would be the forums themselves not the posts in a topic. Whatever happens Izzy will forever be safe (touch wood) in the confines of ajb!

JennyFlexFan · April 2007

SiCo wrote:

Merging is difficult as DarenHat has covered and it's unlikely it will ever be implemented. I may start to take the stance where by we only have upto x pages (4 maybe) and everything after that gets deleted?

The idea would be to keep the forum fresh and continually revolving, I know most people don't look past certain pages... It's only an idea and I'd like your thoguhts on it.

Plus, when the one-off members come here and post a topic that has been discussed to the nth degree, we can't say "Go to this topic if you want to discuss it".

s96024 · April 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

SiCo wrote:

Merging is difficult as DarenHat has covered and it's unlikely it will ever be implemented. I may start to take the stance where by we only have upto x pages (4 maybe) and everything after that gets deleted?

The idea would be to keep the forum fresh and continually revolving, I know most people don't look past certain pages... It's only an idea and I'd like your thoguhts on it.

Plus, when the one-off members come here and post a topic that has been discussed to the nth degree, we can't say "Go to this topic if you want to discuss it".

That is true. There are considerable new members everyday. Although sometimes they don't post at all or they just sign up to ask a single question.

The Sly Fox · May 2007

I would like to say that I would be deeply saddened to see all the old posts go. We shouldn't delete (or lock) our history! Every now and then I'll come across a long dormant thread that I remember seeing way back when I first joined. Using these old posts as reference points, I've been trying to contact some of the thoughtful posters of days gone by. To lose those posts would be to forget our heritage, people! While it would be okay to delete the dozens of "Who's the best Bond" topics, we would lose more than filespace if we deleted everything just because it is old.

...Okay, I'm a sucker for nostalgia, what can I tell you?

I just don't want this forum to become like all the other dictatorship forums out there that lock a thread after it has been around for a week or two. Or the ones that close every thread once it becomes inactive, telling people to start new ones. What's the point in that?? IMO, with all those duplicate locked threads, they look ridiculously cluttered. Not to mention, it gives a rather claustrophobic feel to a site, like you're confined to just the first few pages. You also have the sites that delete all old threads--those sites look empty, like just another of the thousands of Ghost Town forums. Either that or they look like very young forums that are just starting up. I think we should strive not to look like a new startup, since this site goes way back...

I'm sorry if I got carried away, but I've been to countless other forums that practice these very policies and none of those sites are as good as this one. Currently (and probably for a long time), this site is the only forum I consider myself a member of. I just don't want to see it change.

ke02eww · May 2007

The Sly Fox wrote:

I would like to say that I would be deeply saddened to see all the old posts go.

I'm sorry if I got carried away, but I've been to countless other forums that practice these very policies and none of those sites are as good as this one.

Can I humbly second both these thoughts....

Sweepy the Cat · September 2007

About half of my topics have been closed down thanks to some moderaters!!!X-(... No names mentioned. You know who you are.

Sir Miles · September 2007

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

About half of my topics have been closed down thanks to some moderaters!!!X-(... No names mentioned. You know who you are.

Thats because you haven't given due thought to them - ie. can I place all these in one, or an existing, topic ?
Remember that bandwidth costs money.

Hardyboy · September 2007

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

About half of my topics have been closed down thanks to some moderaters!!!X-(... No names mentioned. You know who you are.

. . .And the people who sent PMs and post reports to the mods complaining about your topics know who they are, too!

Alex · September 2007

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

No names mentioned. You know who you are.

I thought I was very polite in closing a few of your topics. (there were around 20 total)

I tried to explain in the easiest and nicest terms possible. However, if you prefer this approach, then so be it.

jetsetwilly · September 2007

You should know who they are too, considering that the Mods PM'd you to let you know why your many, many, many topics were closed...

darenhat · January 2008

Well, I see HardyBoy finally broke 10,000 posts. Shouldn't he win a car or something?

(It might help him get out more {:) )

Hardyboy · January 2008

From your mouth to God's ears, Daren!

Tee Hee · January 2008

Great way to change the tone of this thread for the better Mr. Hat!

Congratulations Hardyboy! {[]

I believe you are the first to reach this milestone. -{

It'd be interesting to know how many posts you have devoted to trashing LALD.

)

Dan Same · January 2008

10,000 posts! That's extraordinary.

Congratulations Hardyboy! {[] It really is a stupendous feat.

Out of curiousity, what was your 10,000st post?

Hardyboy · January 2008

Thanks, guys, but, geeze, Tee Hee--I haven't gone after LALD that much. . .and I don't even think it's the worst film in the series! You'd be more on the money if you said, "How many of your posts just say, 'Topic closed?'"

And, Dan, Post #10,000 was "New Craig Interview" in the Bond 22 forum.

hardyboy

Comments