• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Does Comics General Need A Movie Sub-Forum? (with Poll)

Started by Ditch Fahrenheit,

Does Comics General Need A Movie Sub-Forum?  

432 members have voted

  1. 1. Does Comics General Need A Movie Sub-Forum?

    • 34810
    • 34810
    • 34810

498 posts in this topic

VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

Here's the good thing. You'll either get over whatever your issue is, or you won't. That's your problem to deal with.

 

Now if you want to have continued baggage over that BS that happened, and want to continue bringing it up, then it shows where the concern truly is.

 

lol

 

Again, you are deflecting, just like you did then.

 

Continually bring it up? This is the first time I remember mentioning it since it blew over and the other times I commented on it was in public during a discussion on the subject while it was happening.

 

The reason I brought 'it up' was because you seemed interested in why I felt the way I did so I explained it to you. It's impossible to explain that without bringing 'it' up. If you were reasonable you'd know that rather than try to spin it like I 'continue bringing it up' out of spite.

 

doh!

 

And yes, I'll keep posting TV and movie news. Thanks for your blessing.

 

I know you plan on posting more. Just to be clear, I wasn't giving you my blessing. :) I just think you're a few legos short of a boxed set and I didn't see it until now. Hopefully you will one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ditch Fahrenheit

Ditch Fahrenheit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I have a problem with the REASON people started trying to push a movie sub-forum. Namely, that they think CG is their own private chatroom, and dont like other people using it.

 

I haven't seen that here, at least regarding the Movie/TV sub-forum discussion. And it certainly wasn't why I started this thread. (shrug)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted

It's "Lego." The plural of Lego is Lego. A few Lego short of a boxed set. I learned that this week.

 

So if you are holding TWO of my Eggo Waffles, and I say:

 

Lego my Eggo

 

Do you give me one back, or both? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisInBaltimore

ChrisInBaltimore

Posted
Posted
I have a problem with the REASON people started trying to push a movie sub-forum. Namely, that they think CG is their own private chatroom, and dont like other people using it.

 

I haven't seen that here, at least regarding the Movie/TV sub-forum discussion. And it certainly wasn't why I started this thread. (shrug)

 

 

Maybe he just wants to be invited to your journal thread :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted

It's "Lego." The plural of Lego is Lego. A few Lego short of a boxed set. I learned that this week.

 

Pretty sure it is legos.

 

It may be, but this kind of stuff is on the Internet, so i believe it.

 

"Technically, the official plural form for more than one element of LEGO is “LEGO® brand building bricks.”"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
lol

 

I think he's part of the Occupy CG Movement.

 

No, CG has been a cess-pit for a long time, and the movie threads actually make it a lot better.

 

The reason the 10K+ WC poster type folks dont like it, is because THEY were the ones constantly posting off-topic NON-COMIC related stuff in Comics General. Now, all sorts of low post count members are actually posting in CG in on-topic threads, and the pointless stuff falls lower down.

 

But genuinely, what is the issue being debated? Active threads that "certain" people dont like are staying at the top of CG, so via nepotism lets forces those threads somewhere else? No, that's not something I would ever support.

 

But in the end, CGC is more of a club than a company, so I am sure it will end up happening. But claiming a majority supports it, or has even seen this thread, nah.

 

If those people really need CG to be the second water cooler, they will eventually get it I am sure.

 

You're making a lot of generalizations.

 

It has nothing to do with nepotism. Those that don't want a movie sub-forum can simply vote against it. In the end, the mods usually go along with majority rule on stuff like this. Ie, the voice of the many, not the voice of simply one or two.

 

(shrug)

 

I have a problem with the REASON people started trying to push a movie sub-forum. Namely, that they think CG is their own private chatroom, and dont like other people using it.

 

The main problem is that if someone like Bosco trips 5 or 10 threads in a day with 'news' about anything media related (Don Cheadle stubbing his toe :roflmao: ), which happens regularly, that's one person taking up a ton of real estate with their interests.

 

How is that any different than your accusation of nepotism?

 

It's not a matter of anyone trying to make CG their own private chatroom. It's just logical.

 

When something outgrows it's dwelling, it's time to move on to a better fitting place. It's the natural evolution of the entire chat forum. It started as a few separate forums and has now grown into many.

 

By your logic, ALL discussions from all the other forums should just be in Comics General then...which most of them once were before they were moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

It's "Lego." The plural of Lego is Lego. A few Lego short of a boxed set. I learned that this week.

 

It used to be legos. Damn young'ins. :preach:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

Here's the good thing. You'll either get over whatever your issue is, or you won't. That's your problem to deal with.

 

Now if you want to have continued baggage over that BS that happened, and want to continue bringing it up, then it shows where the concern truly is.

 

lol

 

Again, you are deflecting, just like you did then.

 

Continually bring it up? This is the first time I remember mentioning it since it blew over and the other times I commented on it was in public during a discussion on the subject while it was happening.

 

The reason I brought 'it up' was because you seemed interested in why I felt the way I did so I explained it to you. It's impossible to explain that without bringing 'it' up. If you were reasonable you'd know that rather than try to spin it like I 'continue bringing it up' out of spite.

 

doh!

 

And yes, I'll keep posting TV and movie news. Thanks for your blessing.

 

I know you plan on posting more. Just to be clear, I wasn't giving you my blessing. :) I just think you're a few legos short of a boxed set and I didn't see it until now. Hopefully you will one day.

 

Now you are just going on about this without knowing when to let something go.

 

You made a comment a few weeks back about my starting and posting in TV and movie threads. Even hinted at I was financially benefiting from this. Most probably because this may be your outlook on things - making relationships to make money. I don't know. Just seems like an odd assessment on your part.

 

If calling out this fixation you have on my TV and movie posting as being 'a few legos short of a boxed set' (nice outlook on life you have there though - can't relate to a thing, so you must be crazy), good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing