SCiFI 50s

[GoHawks]

In regard to the suggestions about
  First men in the moon,  Project Moon base, 12 to the moon and night of the
  blood beast.

I am unable to decide if
   (a) you are just trying to be funny
   (b) you think I am asking you to post names of your favorite badmovies
   (c) you just didn't read my search criteria
Obviously none of the films above have the remotest resemblance to the description I gave earlier.
For all the people who earlier tried their best to help, thank you. I am
now giving up the search through this forum.
       

No need to be rude to people who are just trying to help you on a volunteer basis.  Since you give up, I'll move the post to the unsolved archives. 

With all due respect to Rev. Powell, I do not think the OP was being rude with this post.  His original query was slightly open to interpretation; I even did not understand initially that when he said "A man arrives on a planet" he meant that only one person landed.  After he explained this, there were still some more suggestions involving groups of people.

When Bull said "Night of the Bloodbeast?- best choice so far" I did a double-take myself.  How could anyone who had ever seen even a small part of Night of the Bloodbeast make such a mistake?  It wasn't even my movie mystery and I became frustrated.

It is obvious to me IThinkThereforeIAm came to the conclusion that this forum contained nothing more than people making random guesses and decided to cut his losses.  He at least had the courtesy to make a final post explaining this, and he even went so far as to thank those people who tried.  This is a lot more than most would have done, and IMHO was not rude.  Had this been my thread, I probably would have responded in a manner that most would call far "ruder" than this.

Don't you think you'd get a little bit frustrated if someone replied to you "best choice so far" about their own obviously incorrect and completely off-the-wall guess and then followed it up with "I haven't seen them before, it was just some suggestions"?  (I do realize that this reply came after the OP's exit, but the point still stands.)

To summarize, I am NOT trying to troll or start a flame-war;  I am merely offering a different opinion regarding IThinkThereforeIAm's exit message and how it came to be, and expressing some sympathy for his position.  I will now get off of my soapbox.

[IThinkThereforeIAm]

"For all the people who earlier tried their best to help, thank you."

To which your reply is
"no need to be rude..."

What does that mean?

And are people supposed to throw up any names
as a reply  you are not allowed to question their sincerity.
In your book does questioning mean rudeness?
I think you are indeed the rude one.

'

[IThinkThereforeIAm]

GoHawks.

Thank you for the understanding.

[Rev. Powell]

For all the people who earlier tried their best to help, thank you.

Obviously this is not rude and just as obviously this was not the part of the post I was responding to. 

In regard to the suggestions about
  First men in the moon,  Project Moon base, 12 to the moon and night of the
  blood beast.
I am unable to decide if
   (a) you are just trying to be funny
   (b) you think I am asking you to post names of your favorite badmovies
   (c) you just didn't read my search criteria
Obviously none of the films above have the remotest resemblance to the description I gave earlier.
       

This sounds sarcastic, which yes, to me is rude.  Could you really have believed people thought you were asking them to post their favorite bad movies, or were you just trying to highlight the stupidity of the response?  They were bad guesses, but they were offered on a volunteer basis, and yes, I didn't think there's a need to question the poster's sincerity or intelligence.  It's not as if the guesses were obviously insincere, like "DEEP THROAT? STAR WARS? CITIZEN KANE?" xJaseSFx even qualified his guess with "bit of a stretch given your outline..." 

I understand the poster's frustration but I think it could have been handled more tactfully with a "thanks, but that's not it" or just no response at all.  I don't see the need to call people out for making bad guesses, or how that is supposed to help the poster's cause.  You came to the board asking for help, it's not as if you are owed a certain quality of response.     

That's my explanation of why I perceived the response as rude.  It was clearly posted out of frustration.  That said, GoHawks didn't see the response as rude, so it's not obviously and over-the-line remark. I apologize for jumping the gun and calling IThinkThereforeIAm rude.         

[JaseSF]

Yes I admit it was just a guess. I do understand the frustration of someone who wants to learn something but feels they are getting mislead. Still I did indeed say it was an unlikely choice (First Men in the Moon) the last one I suggested. I have seen nearly every space opera from the 50s and 60s and honestly I do recall many a scene like the one described above but I can't remember what movie had a scene exactly as was described although I suspect I may well have seen it before. There's so many sequences where people visit hidden civilizations in the genre that it all gets a bit mixed up in the noggin. I'm pretty sure many TV series of the 50s and 60s era did that type of story too (and some TV series did get the movie treatment too ala Rocky Jones).

[ITHinkThereforeIAm]

There are people who out of the goodness of their heart help others
and other people who help  others because they share their
interest and want to learn along with those they help.
But nonetheless there is also a third type of person
that enjoys making mischief.

And "volunteering" has nothing to do with it.

Are we to say of the virus maker: well let's just ignore him since
he wrote his virus as a volunteer? And laugh it off, oh how I enjoyed
it as his virus trashed my system. And he did it all for free. Bless
his volunteering little heart.

Are we to forgive terrorists since they did it on a volunteer basis?
Or let's put up with kids who shoplift since its all on a volunteer basis.
And people who heckle others
at speeches? should we ignore them since they are so obviously
doing it all as a volunteer?

Computer forums are notoriously subject to "drive-by hits" by "drive-byers"
that is those who do not read the posts
but just enjoy misleading others.

Your forum
is lucky since I have seen "drive byers" who make insulting comments like
"you are confused" or "you don't know what you're talking about"
and then there are even the vulgar ones.

You speak of DeepThroat and Citizen Kane as if these are somehow more greatly
off the mark than some of the responses to my post. But consider again.

It is definitely a drive-by hit to have
  post:  One man  ...
  drive-byer:  Twelve to the moon
 
You can almost hear the drive-byer chuckling to himself. A movie about 12
  for a post about 1. Ha Ha.Ha.
 
Another obvious drive-by hit is
    Post: old man shows him archive
    drive byer: Night of the blood beast.
   
    Is the BLood Beast somehow less off-the-mark then Deep throat?
   
Again you can imagine the drive-byer chuckling. Especially when
he adds to the blood beast suggestion the remark,

"best so far"
Ha Ha Ha.

Yes these "guesses" are "obviously insincere" to use your words.


If the responder hasn't read the post and still responds then he is insincere.

If the responder is suggesting solutions involving films
that he knows nothing about or has never seen then he is insincere.

"I haven't seen them before, it was just some suggestions," said one
responder after I spent time trying to find and view his suggested film.

If his best option is to say nothing, if his best option
is to keep quiet, and instead he throws out wild guesses
then Yes, he is being insincere.

Nobody is owed a quality response you say.

That is true. But
nobody is owed a drive-by hit either, just as nobody is owed
a knock on the head by a volunteer-mugger, and when they give a speech
nobody is owed a heckle  by a volunteer heckler.
A person who goes to a shopping center and encounteers a
"volunteer" terrorist is certainly "not owed" a civilized
meeting but neither is he "owed" being blown apart.
 
So the idea of "volunteer' and "being owed"  a certain quality of response"
are completely irrelevant.

The drive-byer is as disruptive an influence as a virus maker. And
to not speak up about it or not chastize the person is, in my opinion,
morally and ethically wrong. You should not keep quiet about it any
more than you should keep quiet when you see a mugger or a terrorist
or a virus maker or a heckler.

Of course you might say that some of the suggestions are not
by  hard-line drive-byers  but just by  "innocents"
who don't realize
that they have to read posts before replying.

Well a few years ago some people
took that attitude to virus makers: kids just having fun; just ignore
them; they don't really realize the damage they can do. Or hackers out
to have fun, not realizing the anguish they can cause others.
And I know people who take that attitude to shoplifers: don't
be so hard on him he's just a kid, he didn't realize the seriousness
of what he was doing.

No, Maybe not. But he has to start sometime to learn.If nobody ever
tells him he's behaving wrongly then how will he ever learn and change?
Somebody
has to tell him before it goes too far.
Somebody has to point out
forum etiquette to them : A person always has the option
to remain quiet about a post if he knows nothing helpful.

If you don't chastize a kid who
is shoplifting, or making viruses or doing drive-by hits then they
never learn...  and go on and on doing it over and over,and over again,
not realizing they are doing harm, thinking they are having fun,
and the habit grows
as if it really is just harmless fun.
Until it is too late for them.
And they imagine that not having forum manners is normal.
They imagine one
never has to read posts but just throw out whatever funny suggestions
pop into their heads.

I  think people who are just starting out into bad habits should
be strongly reprimanded so they learn not to do it.

 
And what is the harm you say?

If he chooses, instead of keeping quiet, to speak out and suggest
some wild guesses, then what is the harm?

Try this:
  (a) hours of wasted time finding and viewing movies that are far-from
      the posted plot
   (b) money wasted to buy and download movies that are not even close
       to the plot.

I had explained 4 or 5 times that I was looking for a movie about one
man, and many times emphasized that it was not a team of people but one,
man, and yet, after explaining this many times I still
had to pay for and download movies and spend time looking into
movies like First men in the moon that involved "Teams" of people.

And after that I get the weak reply "I haven't seen them before,
it was just some suggestions"

A person always has the option to say nothing.

Of course, a forum cannot impose etiquette on its members.
It has no way to enforce a rule that people "read" before responding.
It has no way to stop drive-byers from having their fun,
It has no way to prevent innocents from developing
bad habits or turning into drive-byers.

It is up to the forum members to do that indirectly.
If more people would speak up and chastize the  people who
do drive-by hits (or never read before responding) then
that might help solve this problem. If more people got "called
out" then they would learn to read before responding.

And yes, sarcasm, is
one effective way to speak up about this.And no it doesn't mean
that you are saying the person is mentally deficient, just
that they are starting a bad habit that they should stop.And
yes sometimes rudness is the only way to get the message across,
(however sarcasm is not rudeness

Rude means showing no consideration for others, but
in chastizing others and trying to get others to develop
proper forum habits I showed great consideration for others.
in the same way that teachers, parents, ministers, social workers,
judges etc. are all critical but not "rude" when they
correct a person. And judges, teachers, parents etc. never
use "tact" to correct, since they expect the chastened person to
be offended enough to straighten themselves out. Tact is usually
the tool of politicians looking for popularity and votes.

I appreciate the fact that you may believe
that people should not criticize those who never read posts
before responding, so if that is really the case
then we will just have to agree to disagree.

But I suspect that you will then have many other frustrated
members who keep getting replies that are irrelevant to their post.
I however think people must speak out about this.

[akiratubo]

Wow, this derailed.

[M.10rda]

This Thread IS THE INTERNET. Distilled.

I'm with Rev. Powell, O.P. was a bit snottier than was called for. WHAT A DEBATE which ensued, tho! 

[Trevor]

This Thread IS THE INTERNET. Distilled.

I'm with Rev. Powell, O.P. was a bit snottier than was called for. WHAT A DEBATE which ensued, tho! 

Agreed: this thread unraveled faster than my famous undies 

[RCMerchant]

I remember this post!  
I was gonna say something, but I was really trying to figure it out!
Of course I- and many other folks couldn't as well.
!
So this psychotic goes of the rails!


Maybe GODZILLA VS MEGALON?

[Allhallowsday]

I don't remember this post.  The OP's last posting here is... uh... LONG.  And I'm being nice.