Well, I checked out the other forum and lo and behold, everyone seems to be behaving nicely.
Glad I could help. [img]wink.gif[/img]
For the last two years, I've noticed a select group of idiots that go from Super-8 forum to Super-8 forum and turn many of the topics into forum fistfights.
If you'd like to discuss real Super-8 topics, please feel free to post here.
Well, I checked out the other forum and lo and behold, everyone seems to be behaving nicely.
Glad I could help. [img]wink.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Which is exactly what you used to do, before those very same boards KICKED YOU OFF!Originally posted by Alex:
For the last two years, I've noticed a select group of idiots that go from Super-8 forum to Super-8 forum and turn many of the topics into forum fistfights.
If you'd like to discuss real Super-8 topics, please feel free to post here.
-----------------------------------------
Moderators note, in the interest of accuracy, here is a quote from none other than David Mullen, renowned Cinemtographer and frequent contributor to cinemtography.com, about Matt Pacini
David Mullen ASC
Nov 30 2004, 01:22 AM
I'm not going to let someone like Matt Pacini take pot shots at those of us with more liberal political beliefs than him without responding in kind, but I really DON'T want to come here and discuss politics at all. And I apologize for any unprovoked political comments I have made in the past (although usually I am responding to someone else's comment, not starting a political thread.)
end of moderator insertion-----------------back to Matt....
In other words, you were SO MUCH MORE OF AN IDIOT THAN ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE, THAT THEY MADE YOU LEAVE.
-----------------insert moderator comment... what's so ridiculous about Matt's comment is that the Brantley forum exploded BEFORE Matt and Roger ever posted even one time. I was huge contributor over a key 60 day time span early on in which the forum began to thrive on a weekly basis in membership. I would go into the archives at night and answer/bump between 3-6 topics every night. Over the ensuing days more and more people would show up as they saw activity that actually was answering unanswered questions.
It's typical of Matt to take on "leaders" of forums and badger them unrelentlessly, unfortunately for me he had just a couple of allies, and that made all the difference.
Here is ANOTHER example of Matt Pacini badgering David Mullen, a Cinematographer of very high regards who generously contributes his time on cinematography.com
Matt Pacini quote "David, it certainly wasn't my intention for my off-handed little remark to "escalate" into this big thing, but I think you were partly responsible for that,
"I CLEARLY stated in my original post that I wasn't criticizing you for hiring interns, yet you (admittedly) didn't read my entire post, then went on to rail against me in your response for something I didn't do.
After that, it was post after post saying I was "attacking David for hiring an intern" which is clearly NOT what I did, and all my subsequent posts were trying to clarify that, to no avail.
Go back and read this threat with an open mind if you can, and you'll see how absurd this is; me saying one thing, the next post assuming I'm saying something else, me clarifying that that's NOT what I said, the next post insisting it is, blah blah.
In other words, I wasn't starting an argument or criticizing you. It was your ASSUMPTION that I was, and the subsequent flood of people defending you against an accusation THAT I DIDN'T MAKE, that caused it to be an argument.
MP".........end of Matt quote from Cinematography.com
continue Moderator Insertion-
I guess Matt can accuse other people of misunderstanding his own words, but when I did the same thin on Brantley's forum, Matt led the charge with all kinds of insults and even lied about the content of email communication we had briefly had.
end of Moderator insertion----------------------
How you can point fingers at someone who is doing maybe 10% of what you have done, is just inconceivable, but not surprising, given you're the poster boy of idiots.
MP
---------------Moderator insertion
I actually blame Mike Brantley for doing an incredibly poor job of moderating, and for being influenced by the lure of getting his own workprinter. I made massive contributions to Brantley's forum yet when it came down to honestly dealing with the situation, Brantley chose the easy way out.
Here is one final Matt Pacini inspired response from David Mullen....
David Mullen quote "QUOTE(David Mullen @ Jul 25 2005, 02:51 PM)
Look, I just asked if anyone wanted to be my intern in New Mexico. That's ALL.
YOU'RE (Matt Pacini) the one who wanted to turn this into a political discussion, take a swipe at unions, minimum wage, Hollywood studios, etc. -- all your standard pet peeves. You can't help yourself! And look what happens everytime we bring this stuff up... we all start arguing, taking sides, accusing each other of not understanding what the other was saying, and it keeps escalating.
You want to accuse the unions of hypocrisy for allowing unpaid internships on a set, yet you also don't want the unions to do anything about it either! You just want the opportunity to complain about them again and are using my post as an excuse" (end David Mullen's quote...)
--------------------Moderator's comment...
I have to commend Mr. Mullen for so eloquently explaining Mr. Pacini's "ability" to escalate a discussion into a war, as Mr. Pacini did to me in the past on several occasions on Brantley's forum, then stood by and acted as if he hadn't initiated anything as Roger and Chas would then join in, always against me. When one person has to respond to three separate idiots, it makes that one person look like the cause of the problem. Yet BEFORE Roger or Matt ever set foot on Brantley's forum, the forum ran very well and I was one of several contributors who made it so.
(end of moderator's note)
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ June 29, 2006 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
Matt, one of many inconsistencies with your "reasoning" is that I was on the other forum from December 99 to the following June 2000, that's a 7 month period, with NO PROBLEMS. And it was my efforts, as has been acknowledged by Brantley himself, that the forum grew quite well during that time.
The problems only started once you and Roger started posting. So don't hide behind sweeping statements that there was a consensus or the moderator said this or that.
You yourself recently called that Moderator "ineffectual", or something to that effect.
Your over the top hysterics over non volatile situations are becoming legendary.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Really? That's your opinion. Don't mistake people not standing up to your insanity as them actually liking you. Tolerating you isn't the same thing as endorsing you. Matt tolerated you for the last year until you contacted the bidders of his ebay auction and cost him money.Originally posted by Alex:
Matt, one of many inconsistencies with your "reasoning" is that I was on the other forum from December 99 to the following June 2000, that's a 7 month period, with NO PROBLEMS.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Then how come your OWN forum is so pathetic, Alex? Where's that legion of 600+ followers you boasted about taking with you when Mike kicked you off of his board for being the same kind of **** you are here on your own forum?Originally posted by Alex:
And it was my efforts, as has been acknowledged by Brantley himself, that the forum grew quite well during that time.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Oh, here we go again. To hear Alex tell the tale, he got kicked off of TWO different forums because Matt and I have so much power to control other people. I wish. Boo-hoo. Everyone pity Alex. Life is so unfair and his behaviour had nothing to do with it. I guess it will be our fault if you get kicked off of ebay, too? Or could your unethical conduct in contacting bidders and interfering with an auction have something to do with it?Originally posted by Alex:
The problems only started once you and Roger started posting.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">Nah. What's legendary is your inability to apologize and take responsibility for your actions. Tell us all again why you interfered with Matt's ebay auction? Hello?Originally posted by Alex:
Your over the top hysterics over non volatile situations are becoming legendary.
Roger, I think your short term memory is starting to go. I never said I had 600 members, I said I had made over 600 posts before you or Matt arrived, and had helped Brantley's forum grow as a result.
And once again, I'm not taking sole credit, the fact that Brantley was wise enough to be listed on the search engines played just as big a part. But once people arrived, seeing activity going on was a good thing.
You can try to change that fact all you want, but I won't let you succeed.
Glad to hear that Matt "tolerated" me, actually let me be, wow, that was so nice of him. Um, once again, that is something you should not be commenting on, putting words in the mouth of others.
Someday, you two may see how horribly you mistreated me, but I'm not counting on it.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">I see. So, again, tell us WHY you interfered with Matt's ebay auction?Originally posted by Alex:
Someday, you two may see how horribly you mistreated me
If the situation were reversed, and it was Matt wanting to buy a camera from an ebay seller who had created a topic post that they were having problems with a modication they had attempted, Matt would probably want to know that the topic had been properly updated and that the seller had solved the issue, on that same topic post.
<font size="2" face="verdana, sans-serif">But that information was already included on Matt's ebay ad. It clearly stated that the camera worked fine, regardless of YOUR suspicions based on a year old obscure post on someone else's forum. You let your own paranoia and suspicions drive you to warn Matt's bidders about a non-existant issue.Originally posted by Alex:
If the situation were reversed, and it was Matt wanting to buy a camera from an ebay seller who had created a topic post that they were having problems with a modication they had attempted, Matt would probably want to know that the topic had been properly updated and that the seller had solved the issue, on that same topic post.
Therefore, IF the situation had been reversed and Matt was buying the camera in question, he wouldn't have needed any input from you because all the information he needed was on the ebay ad.
The bottom line is that Matt presented the item as working correctly. You then tried to convince the bidders that it wasn't. You interfered with Matt's aucition and cost him money.
Once again, WHY did you interfere with Matt's auction?
I'm a hostboard member, and information on Hostboard was not updated. I would have just emailed Matt first but as I previously explained, that was no longer an option after our email exchange of a couple of years ago.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks