Greg's & Roger's Comments...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

July 30th, 2003, 01:00 AM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg_C:
"I originoly posted this on Shooting 8 MM"

I believe in what Management Guru Peter Druker has said, "Praise in Public Criticize in Private." But to get this out in the open I have got to say this on your form.

I did not join the Hoastboard form till after all the flames had ended. After reading the triggered that started the fight between Roger Evens and others and Alex, I feel Alex was wrong and should have apologized to Roger and I've told Alex that privately.

Having that been said, I can't see why all the fighting had to go on and on. Perhaps Alex should not have responded. But know one likes being attack day after day and not say anything so I can see his point and I can understand how that hurts.

Then Alex did the unthinkable he started positing on this board. And some of his "enemy" started picking fights with him on this board. Digging up dirt from the past.

Guys....We Need A Healing! A little forgiveness and an apology or two along the way could not hurt.

I think that Alex should never have been kicked off this board. I've always been for the underdogs and don't like to see a man being kicked when he's down.

I've also noticed on Brantley's board that not lot of people would answer my original post. Why because I also post on Alex's board.

I suggest that this boards invites him to come back.

Then ask everyone to be civil.

If you don't want to respond to his post so be it.

I still believe that Alex has a lot to offer, especially in time laps animation in super 8, he's a master.

Permanently banning someone only hurts those who might learn something.

I'd like to give a line by line response, but I have a meeting to go to. So for now I'll give the short version.

It should never have been about Roger. It should have been about Super-8 first and foremost on the Brantley forum.

I recently joined a users group that had a preamble warning that basically said, "Don't join and then say something else is better than what we use here, that is flaming and baiting pure and simple," (I've paraphrased it).

So when Roger stated that no one would shoot super-8 if they could afford 16mm, it felt like a flame to me, pure and simple.

Combined with the fact that Roger didn't start contributing to the forum until nine months after I had started, and it points to the new kid in town not taking a moment to absorb the primary purpose of the Super-8 forum he had just joined.

But beyond that, there were Fake ID's being used against me on that forum, which then affected others perception of me. And these fake ID's were done by Chas, perhaps others. Chas is the also the fellow who claimed he can't stand liars, and as a example, has skewered a company called Great American Hero on several occasions for being a liar.

What a hypocrite.

Without the faked ID's, I believe the situation could have been resolved. What also fails to get mentioned is that I reduced the number of posts I made, and I tried to avoid further problems.

I made an effort, but others did not. But here is the most important point, I always let things go after a while.

The only time I don't let things go is when others keep saying the same **** over and over. Lifetime bans **** , pure and simple.
Proponents of lifetime bans need to look in t the mirror and ask why it's necessary in their life to impose such restrictions on a forum that is supposed to be devoted to the use of Super-8 first and foremost.

[ July 30, 2003 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]
July 30th, 2003, 01:07 AM
Alex

By the way, I understand now that Roger probably did not mean his comment about "shooting sixteen over 8 if one could afford it" as a flame, but when it is said by a newbie (as Roger was when he posted the remark) and it flys in the face of another (me) who has been on the forum and supported it's growth for 9 months, it's a recipe for trouble. That's when a moderator needs to enter the fray and contribute in such a way as to create harmony rather than acrimony.

The moderator just decided that only one person was to blame (as Greg seems to agree with), and I find that position laughable.

By the way Greg, you didn't register until a year after all this happened. Were you around while it was all going down?
July 30th, 2003, 04:55 AM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Alex, despite our personal differences, you will find that I have made it a point not to talk about you on other forums that you have been excluded from, after you're gone. In fact, there have been times that someone posted a criticism about you on unrelated threads I started and I deleted those entire topics while pointing out it's unfair to make statements about you that you aren't able to respond to. I think this is only fair, such as it is, and following this rule we have managed to stay out of each other's paths, all for the better of our readers. As such, you should reconsider making statements like the following:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> by Alex:
Super-8 has always been mired by posers who really want to work in 16mm and 35mm, and CAN'T WAIT to leave Super-8 for "greener" pastures. I'm not one of those, but it's pretty clear that my biggest objectors, (Roger and Mattias) fit that model quite well.

For the record, I am pushing 50 and have a long career in my past working in everything from super 8 to 16mm to 35mm to HD24P. I have provided special effects in all guages for countless low budget productions, as well. At this point in my life, ALL I DO is produce super 8 equipment and have left my 35mm and and 16mm days behind far behind me. Anyone that has visited my website at

http://www.moviestuff.tv

can attest to my dedication to the super 8 medium and my committment to helping the independent super 8 and 8mm producer. Your statement above is so very NOT true and is very much in tone what started our dissagreement a long time back. It would appear that nothing has changed. If I'm a typical "poser" then super 8 needs all the posers it can get.

Quote:

by Alex:

Yeah, it sounds harsh, yet my comment was based on actual posts that you and Mattias have made in the past. I recall one of the first things Mattias posted after being a super-8 finalist in a competition was he couldn't wait to shoot his next film in 16mm.

I also recall you saying very early on, within days of joining Mike Brantley's forum..."nobody would shoot Super-8mm if they could afford 16mm." Everything that followed on Brantley's forum was directly a result of that comment by you. (Mattias's comment was much more recent). In retrospect, as soon as you posted that comment, I should have e-mailed Mike Brantley and asked him for a clarification.

If I had, I would have probably gotten a milquetoast response from Brantley, and it might have been enough of a sign for me to start my own Super-8 forum right then and there. Instead, I foolishly believed in being loyal to the forum that I had been on for 9 months as I hoped that your words could be addressed so as not to make the Super-8 forum be classified in the manner you had described.

In a nutshell, that was the turning point on that forum. Your belief that it was anything else is I what I object to. Alex



Quote:

Originally posted by Corey:
So they actually banned you?



Quote:

Originally posted by MovieStuff:

No, Corey, "they" didn't. There is no conspiracy here. Andreas's forum isn't run by committee and neither is Mike's. If Alex isn't allowed to post on those two forums, then you need to ask Andreas or Mike the reasons. They both have an email link and a private message link. I respectfully suggest you use it instead of speculating.
Roger



Quote:

by Alex:

LOL. While what you say appears to sound right on, then explain how neither of these two "moderators" have ever on their own e-mailed, ever, not even once, of their own initiative. You are asking Corey to do something that neither of these two "moderators" have ever done. After the hundreds of posts I contributed to on Brantley's forum and the hundred or so posts I contributed to on Shooting 8mm, I never once got any kind of communique unless I initiated it.

Alex



Quote:

Originally posted by MovieStuff:

What's not "fair" is for Alex to post uninformed statements like the one above and then expect me not to respond.
Roger



Quote:

by Alex:

I don't mind you responding Roger. It would be nice if I could respond to comments made by others about me on other forums. Like when Calgodot (or was it Chas), claimed that I thought they had something to do with my film not being viewed at last years Attack of the 50 foot film reels. It was a completely inaccurate remark, but it resides on the Shooting 8mm forum with no response from me.

More importantly, I cannot make contributions to topics where no one has previously responded to, the ones where a newbies question goes unanswered.
Alex



Quote:

Originally posted by Corey:

Ericmartinjarvies, Roger, and a few others at the shooting 8 forum it seems are always fighting. I don't even read their stuff anymore.

Well, again, being uninformed by not reading isn't quite the same thing as reading and determining who the real culprit is. I was hardly the only person that objected to Eric. Virtually the entire board is tired of Eric's attitude and behavior. The fact that I am willing to call him on it makes me an easy target for those that don't bother to see the larger picture by reading. Ironically, you benefit from the end result (on other topics) because the number of inane questions and assuptions presented as fact are reduced. [quote]Originally posted by MovieStuff:

-------

Quote:

by Alex:
[QB]
and yet, when I responded to Mr. Jarvies anti U.S. post a while back, 3 or 4 others came to Mr. Jarvies defense, and I was banned around that time. Careful, or you could end up having to post here. [img]graemlins/bat.gif[/img] Alex



Quote:

Originally posted by Corey:

Well, I spoke up and mentioned a permenant ban. Boy did they jump on me for that.



Quote:

Originally posted by MovieStuff:

No, "they" didn't, Corey. Cal was really the only person that actually called you on your suggestion. Again, there is no conspiracy here and the forum isn't run by committee. Roger



Quote:

by Alex:

But Corey still makes an excellent point. Permanent Bans s-uck, and frankly, they teeter on a form of personal slander or libel against the person being banned, ESPECIALLY when no attempt was made to contact the person by the moderator to discuss what was being considered. Alex



Quote:

Originally posted by Corey:
I'm not even going to attempt to post back on that thread. I've taken the Shooting 8 forum off my favorites list, I'm just tired of the same old stuff.

I don't understand your logic. You can ignore an entire forum but can't ignore specific threads? Considering that the problem you speak of is limited to perhaps one or two out of, literally, hundreds of useful and educational topics, I think throwing out the baby with the bath water to be a bit extreme, don't you think?

Quote:

by Alex:
I would consider the baby/bathwater comment to describe exactly what I have been through. Yes, a lifetime ban is a bit extreme, especially when the moderator just made a bit appearance every now and then to show who was boss, but never actually communicated in private via e-mail.

I don't really care what forum you post on, Corey. There are lots of them and Alex has one here that you like and that's what matters most. But consider that the very action you and Alex are engaging in is the catalyst for what you find so objectionable in the forums you've abandoned.

Roger<hr /></blockquote>

Quote:

by Alex:
Psst, Corey, did you get my Personal Message in which I addressed the very thing Roger is talking about. (That Alex sure is a meanie, isn't he!)
July 30th, 2003, 12:14 PM
cameraguy

[ August 29, 2003 05:47 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]

Original message was reinserted by the moderator to keep the topic thread intact.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
I made an effort, but others did not. But here is the most important point, I always let things go after a while.

Let it go

[ September 06, 2003 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]
July 30th, 2003, 02:07 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
I understand now that Roger probably did not mean his comment about "shooting sixteen over 8 if one could afford it" as a flame,

You knew it then, too. Anyone with your background would know that my statement was accurate. If 16mm cost the same as super 8, then most people would shoot 16mm, if they are concerned about getting the best quality for the money, which is the context of the original thread, Alex. You know that now and you knew that then.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
but when it is said by a newbie (as Roger was when he posted the remark) and it flys in the face of another (me) who has been on the forum and supported it's growth for 9 months, it's a recipe for trouble. That's when a moderator needs to enter the fray and contribute in such a way as to create harmony rather than acrimony.

No moderator was needed to clarify anything because it created no problem with anyone but you. The reason? Because everyone else understood the validity of what I wrote and the context it was presented in. Only you took exception to it and misconstrued it for reasons that still make zero sense. Compounding the problem was the misinformation about 16mm you then gave to the person that started the thread, who came to Mike's forum looking for accurate information about how to approach a 16mm PSA shoot. That thread was then deleted by the original poster, which has left others in the dark as to the original context of the disagreement but the fact remains that what I wrote was accurate then and is still accurate today and makes no difference that it appeared in a super 8 forum since the person that started the thread was asking about 16mm to begin with.

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
The moderator just decided that only one person was to blame (as Greg seems to agree with), and I find that position laughable.

I guess this is just another example that everyone else is wrong and you are right, Alex. As I say, you knew then that what you wrote was wrong and all you had to do was admit that and apologize but you have made it perfectly clear that you don't believe in apologies because of the supposed insincerity of the apologies people give. Why should this matter, Alex? Aren't your own apologies sincere?

I have no desire to debate this entire episode over again. I am only posting here because you have mentioned my name. Leave me out of your forum discussions and I'll quietly go away. I am sure that no one really cares about any of this.

Roger
July 30th, 2003, 04:15 PM
Alex

Quote:

Originally posted by cameraguy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alex:
I made an effort, but others did not. But here is the most important point, I always let things go after a while.

Let it go<hr /></blockquote>Let me put a qualifer into that statement. Lifetime bans don't apply.

However, when my super-8 website is complete (hopefully by the end of August), and I know I am getting listed by search engines, I will let it go, because then it truly will be a choice for anyone interested in finding out about Super-8.

Right now, there are censors at work posing as moderators, and on filmmaking forums, I find that sickening.
July 30th, 2003, 04:52 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:

Surely you would agree that if Mr. Brantely had stepped in and merely said, I think you both have made valid points...the fight would have been over, pure and simple.

A) Your point was NOT valid and my information was dead-nuts accurate. You had the chance to concur and chose to be obtuse and insulting, instead.

B) Mike had better things to do that moderate a non-issue and knows enough about the medium to recognize that your point was not valid, so why SHOULD he endorse it? Basically, you're saying that if Mike had lied and supported your bogus information, then you'd have been happier. That's just silly and totally unreasonable.

C) If you had not offered bogus advice to the original poster, I would have more respect for you as an experienced film maker.

D) Your statements later regarding my relations with clients was totally slanderous and uncalled for.

E) Items and C and D above combine to create the profile of someone that I can not trust in deed or in thought.

F) If you had admitted your error on both counts and apologized, then there would be no problem now.

Alex, you keep citing others as the reason for your problems but, in the end, it is quite obvious to everyone, including your supporters, that you are in total control of the image you've created for yourself. There is no one to blame here other than yourself and your endless filibuster to justify your actions and your warped philosphy continue to fall on deaf ears. If you think I am going to admit some sort of culpability in all this beyond wasting time arguing with you, you are mistaken. You either get it or you don't and you simply don't. That is not meant as a slam but as an observance of the reality that you seem to think I am oblivious to but is obvious to everyone but you, it would seem. Why is this so clear to everyone but you? How many people have you known that were exiled from two different forums? Think about it.

Roger
July 30th, 2003, 07:47 PM
Alex

Roger, isn't it possible that the Super-8 images I am currently displaying on this forum make my original frustration with your "16mm over S-8 statement", valid?
July 30th, 2003, 07:54 PM
Alex

If we were to use your criteria as the agreed upon standard, there is no way I should have Shot Ektachrome Super-8 for the Alphabet song. I spent 50 HOURS shooting time-exposure frames, one at a time, I used none of my own lighting, and I only shot one roll of film!

If ever there was a project that could have been done just as affordably in 16mm, or 35mm, the Alphabet song would have been it. And yet, I would NEVER have attempted this project in either 16mm or 35mm.

The combination of ease of use of my Super-8 set-up, the portablility, lightness, super-fast set-up times as I went from location to location all made Super-8 the premiere choice for me, and in the process, makes your statement about using 16mm rather than 8mm if the costs were the same, inaccurate.
July 30th, 2003, 10:01 PM
MovieStuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex:

If ever there was a project that could have been done just as affordably in 16mm, or 35mm, the Alphabet song would have been it. And yet, I would NEVER have attempted this project in either 16mm or 35mm.

But that's your personal choice, Alex, and has nothing to do with the context of the original discussion. You like Super 8 and want to use Super 8. It only illustrates that, despite the fact that you can do everything you wanted in 16mm, Super 8 was the premier choice for you due to your own particular affinity for the medium. You said so yourself: Your project could have been produced in 16mm or 35mm. You simply chose not to.

The author of the infamous thread that started all this wanted to use 16mm and asked specific questions about the viability of 16mm and you flat out misinformed him that super 8 would be a better choice (the guy had huger bank interiors to light, for petes sake) and misinformed him again by making up bogus reasons that 16mm wouldn't work (saying that the cameras were too big and bulky and needed a larger crew), all because you felt his question, and my answer, "didn't belong" on a super 8 forum.

Look, I'm not going to debate this issue all over again. No one cares.

Roger

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page