Do I care? No. I thought it was funny and just wanted to take credit for it, the way terrorist groups take credit after a bombing.

As for Pete, I have no idea what to say, and if I did, I'd be afraid to say it. I've gotten bounced from this board once myself.

Pete, return home and ask your parents to re-potty train you, only easier this time. Then hook up with a good bong and some killer weed and spend a week repeating this mantra: "It just doesn't matter, It just doesn't matter..."

You know, I come here to discuss film music, not to discuss these other matters, and not to be gagged or watch my manners. I could go elsewhere, but this is where I want to post. I more or less follow the rules, but I'd still like to see less of them. I don't like to remind Pete that this is America and not some gulag but it seems necessary at times.

These are threads that should be closed!

As a matter of fact, I think this is one for the scrapbook... meaning... scrap it.

I don't always agree with Ford but I agree he should be able to post here as he pleases.

Peter K wasn't completely forthcoming about the details of Ford's banishment (I emailed him as he suggested). Rocco and others don't terribly miss that he's gone. Maybe Ford was insulting to Pete and some of the board members but is that reason to send him packing? It's not like he's living in your house, racking up a phone bill, eating all your food, and deficating on your kitchen table---he's posting on an on-line message board for chrissakes.

People, where are your skins? Are all your egos so weak and over-sensitive that you can't deal with a few mean-spirited posts? Geesh! No wonder the Chinese are saber-rattling, one look at us and they know they can take Taiwan.

A new rule has appeared in the line-up, which brings the total to three (examples included):

1. Try, as best you can, to keep to the subject. I've certainly tried my best to accomodate everyone's ideas. "? for PeterK" is the official off-topic, anything goes thread.

GOOD TOPIC: "I bought Fido a new toy for the back yard - James Horner's PERFECT STORM!!"

BAD TOPIC: "Jesus Rides a Harley"

2. Be cool when you post. This could be defined in several ways, but it all sorta means the same thing: be civil, be honest, have good intent, and be charitible.

GOOD COOL: "Dude, if you don't like my opinion, fine. We've addressed all the important points and still can't come to terms. I appreciate the discussion."

BAD COOL: "What the ****?? How the **** can you say **** like that? You don't have the first ****ing clue about what you are ****ing talking about because YOU WEREN'T ON THE ****ING **** STAGE WHEN IT ****ING HAPPENED!! *******!!!"

(sure, the second one is a lot more fun to read, but I think you get what I am after)

3. Discussions about PeterK or how the message boards are being handled immediately qualify for removal. PeterK and the first rule of the house, in themselves, are not movie music related, and therefore off-topic fodder only good for "? for PeterK."

GOOD: " "

BAD: "CommandantK is ****ing white trash who wants everyone to kiss his ****ing ******* or else he treats you with so much ****ing bile **** that he makes you feel most unwelcome and most ****ing stripped of your basic ****ing freedoms. AdministratorK needs a few ****ing doses of ****ed up reality because he don't know the first ****ing thing about sucking and ****ing up the *******. He also needs to buy his own ****ing server!!!"

Maybe I'm just simple-minded.

Bravo for the rules.

Thanks for clarifying the rules - it makes sense.

Except that this forum is called "General Topics" (which seems to be pretty vague, and limitless in scope...)

In fact, your DESCRIPTION for this forum is: "Limitless conversation on MovieMusic".

Since you used "MovieMusic" (as one word) I assume you mean that this forum is for limitless conversation on this website, which could be anything from movie music to MovieMusic.

So if you're gonna "change horses in midstream", do yourself a favor and change the name and description of this forum.

Limitless conversation on movie music.

Literally, "anything within the context of music for movies."

I am not sure why personal nastiness or rudeness on this PRIVATELY operated board is the subject of so much 1st amendment posturing and debate. Those arguments simply don’t apply.

I quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It says CONGRESS (and by extension, governmental agencies) shall not abridge free speech. This is a private forum, not a public one.

If PeterK chooses to restrict discussion on the forum, that is his choice. If he chooses to ban someone, that again is his choice. This is not an uncommon practice. If you went to a conference on global warming, what do you suppose people would be talking about? If in the middle of the conference, you got up and launched into prolonged discussion of the national economy of Russia, as interesting as it might be, the moderator would request that you get back on topic. If you refused and disrupted the conference, you might be asked to leave. If you continued to do this at every conference, you would not be invited.

Of course, you might chat with you colleagues about this subject away the conference or after the conference adjourned, but during the conference you would be expected to discuss the matter at hand.

Here the topics are film music. Occasionally something off-topic will crop up and generally if the participants are restricting themselves to cordial behavior, there is no problem. When it turns nasty, then the moderator steps in.

Finally (bet you couldn’t wait to read that) , I wish that we would all just practice a little more tolerance in dealing with these issues. For some, the thought of banning anyone, not matter how obnoxious, is abhorrent. At the same time for some, putting up with obnoxious, rude people is equally abhorrent. Apparently, PeterK does not wish to have certain elements running loose on his board. If I don’t like that, my remedy is simple. Go away and come back another day with a little more perspective.

Personally, while I have found Ford’s comments occasionally helpful or insightful, I have often found them acerbic and sometimes pompous. There is nothing that I have read from Ford here or elsewhere that was exclusive to him alone. Besides, he has many forums that he posts to, so if you need a Ford fix, sign up for Filmus-List. It is completely unmoderated list where Ford posts all his news and occasionally gets the news that he used to post here.

Ultimately, our opinions of PeterK’s actions are immaterial. If what he has done bothers anyone that much then maybe they need to step away from the keyboard and go see a movie, or watch the whales, or take a walk through the snow or whatever is you do to get perspective. This is a messageboard, not Selma.

If I raise the first amendment, it's just as a reminder to Pete that the public at large has these rights so why isn't that good enough for this board as well. I'm trying to get Pete to change his policies (although it tends to have the opposite effect of entrenching his position as he did above by posting the 3 rules). I realize that the amendment doesn't apply to him in this context---I just want him to jettison those rules and let things be as they are. I wouldn't feel the need to discuss the workings of the board if the off-topic rule and don't criticize what Pete does rule weren't here.

MWR brings up the point that in a meeting if someone wanted to discuss something off-topic, he could go out in the hall and discuss it there. But here, there is a very limited 'going out in the hall place to go'. I guess I don't think that off-topic posts and harsh words to each other or the Kommandant are really all that horrible or threaten to destroy things as others here seem to think they would.

I was disappointed to learn that I am not the person alluded to on the moron board. I was hoping my personal brand of insolence was gaining notoriety. Oh, well. I'll have to try harder to pisss more people off.

I did email Pete to find out his rationale behind banning Ford. I could see where he was coming from. Ford has done a lot of nasty stuff to a lot of people overtime it seems. I think Ford's posts, as obnoxious as they can be, are still somewhat innocuous. But Pete's been dealing with the guy for 5 years and is tired of it. So, I'm not going to say anything more about it.

Still, Pete, I really wish it wouldn't come down to these things.

"....itjustdoesntmatteritjustdoesntmatter..."

Shame, shame, shame on us.

Not so.

One extremely trivial, benign and humorous post that I authored BROKE NO RULE whatsoever, but was deleted nonetheless. Where there's SMOKE, there's FIRE...meaning that my one little post is certainly NOT the only one to die an untimely death. There are surely others which will never be known. But that's OK. I don't care anymore. I enjoy this message board, but my true spirit for it has been broken, and so I simply smile and talk to my friends.

Roll with the punches.

NP: Hollow Man Kinda' Flexible, and "Above the Laws (all 3 of them)".

I hate to go back on my word. I said I wouldn't discuss this anymore. When I said that I was hoping to bury the hatchet and leave this whole thing in peace.

Pete had put up with 5 years of Ford's criticisms, Rocco didn't miss him, Al told me to get my brain checked, someone else thought I should leave the board "gain perspective" and return more humble. So, in the spirit of solidarity and out of fear of further upsetting everyone and rubbing up against Pete and getting my butt banned from the board like Ford, I said fine, if this is the way people want it, I'll agree.

Well, I let myself, Ford, and all of you down. I was tired of fighting. I was being a coward.

This is Pete's site, he has his 3 rules, most people seem fine with the way he rules his kingdom, he has the right to run things as he'd like. He's had it with Ford and a lot of others too it seems. I do understand his reasons. OK.

But I still think he's wrong. And I was wrong to let up from my basic opinions and positions even if I have no power to enforce them.

Pete----Dump the rules. Reinstate Ford. Just live with the results.

D-R-J.

I love this place, I don't want to be banished, but I think Pete should just ignore what he doesn't like rather than tidy it all up. Pete does not need to take it personally. Even the youngest memebers here do not need Daddy looking after them to police all the badness from the place. Rather than take this so seriously, all should just shrug and let it be. I would do the same and was trying to do so when I was reminded I was being a cop-out.

I do understand Pete's at his wit's end, but that's the moment to let go not re-trench yourself behind more walls.

D-R-J

Dump the rules (or atleast enforce them rarely and with pre-warning and consultation from the jury)
Reinstate Ford
Just live with the results

Sorry Pete, but 5 years or not, 5 years more or not, you really can just blow off Ford's statements whatever they are. If saying this gets my own butt thrown out, and people say, well, I won't miss him. Then fine. Maybe my love for this place and my desire to stay is misguided.

Chris, I'm sure there are plenty of threads that have been deleted without other people knowing. I personally have been "privy" to about 7 or 8 of them (but they're never REALLY gone, regardless of what Peter might do). It's frustrating, for sure, but it is Peter's site. If he's going to instate rules, then I suppose we lemmings have no choice but to go along with them.

And MWRuger - you bring up some very valid issues. But your comparison to the "conference" is not quite accurate. In Ford's case (from what I understand) he has (in the past) brought up some debatable issues and while he might have done so in a none-too-courteous way, (keeping with your metaphor) he wasn't just "asked to leave" - he went out for a minute, and when he came back, found that the powers-that-be had changed the locks, and disabled his account. Now does that really seem fair?

As for the topics being solely film music, I have to say that many of the posts here tend to stray off topic - and plenty of them were never "on topic" to begin with. Posts like "Battle with the Webmaster" (http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/004686.html) for instance are a prime example of what's wrong with this site. If Peter and his entourage can't even stick to the rules he's imposing, then why have them at all?

But it helps to be constructive too.

It may be the Bush Administration now and Democracy may be taking hits, but it would still be nice to see the workers take part in running the factory.

Rather than shout DRJ again, here is one alternative plan to the 3 rules.

OK, as it stands now, we either take things as they are, or find another place to go. Not much room in between.

Is this a royal court, a dictatorship, or an everybody-get-together-to-discuss-stuff board?

I have no power in this: these are just suggestions and my opinions.

1) I'd like to see a section set aside for off-topic posts, just like there is one for classical music, movie trailers, and the like.

Instead of posting to the one silly, 43 page morass ? for Peter K post, people who know each other because of this board can discuss sports, politics, recipies, or whatever without being shouted at or shut down.

Chances are that place would actually get less posts than any other.

People who post off-topic elsewhere can have their posts moved here rather than deleted, etc.

2) If posts are going to be closed, moved, deleted, etc. I think there should be a prior statement explaining why and allowing a period of time, say 12 to 24 hours, before following through.

I think the person who posted the topic should be contacted by email so that it's not a shock to he/she or the board at large.

Perhaps, there should also probably be a supreme court of sorts, a random 3 or 5 or 7 people, who are asked to decide things in case there is a protest on the part of someone. Either a protest against administrative policy, or a request that something be closed because they are offended.

3) Before anybody is kicked from the board, I believe, it should be a decision by all and not by one, a vote of 50-50 or 2/3. It should be brought up as a poll or something before it just happens and we learn about it after the fact.

Have we all just been drafted as citizens of an independent government??!?

So, according to the ''rules'' above, PeterK points a finger at someone, and everyone else votes on it, right?

When did this board suddenly become a governmental force? It's a messageboard! A messageboard!

Yes, we have a community of people who ''live'' here--and they've been given rules.

What would be the standards for qualifying to elect someone off the board? Is anyone who posts here qualified?
Do you know how difficult it is to get people to vote on the President of their own country, much less some social ousting?

This place is not kept tidied up just for the current board members, but also for the number of visiting non-members who drop by the boards daily. The reason they come in the first place is to talk about film music. If they see a bunch of talk about the nature of existence at MovieMusic.com, they will probably take off for another board. We may be losing many possible new members with all of this 'democracy.'

And re-instate Ford? Personally, I couldn't possibly ask Peter to do that. Ford has way too much time on his hands. Peter doesn't. With all of Ford's nonsense to deal with, Peter won't have as much time to work on MovieMusic.com. This site is constantly under development. There are always clever new features being thought up! There will only be less time devoted to these things if Ford is back in the picture.

I wish everyone, those acting somewhat selfish in particular, would understand that our webmaster would be even more productive if people would get off his back about these trivial issues.

Relax, you bastards.

I would like to see a section where we could go to talk about stuff other than movie music as well. As we begin to develope a more personal relationship with each other it would be nice to have an area to discuss other things as a group instead of having to email everyone.

The reason I agree with PeterK is because I'm tired of wading through all of the garbage posts on other sites and can understand his reasoning. Plus this is Peter's site and he do with it what he wants.

If that was what happened to Ford then you could be right. But let me remind you that we don’t know what actions led to his banning, just as we don’t know all of the emails that went back and forth between Ford and PeterK. We also don’t know what may have been posted on other sites that might have acerbated the situation. We also don’t know how acrimonious the situation actually was over the last five years.

My conference analogy was not aimed specifically at Ford but rather at a rational that could get someone banned. Maybe it isn’t accurate enough. I don’t think being off-topic is the thing that causes the trouble so much as the personal spite or general unpleasantness that a post causes that could get someone banned. I positive that PeterK doesn’t just ban someone without discussing the issue via e-mail.

Lou:

I am sure that you mean your worker analogy to be humorous, but this isn’t a factory, its more of a private club. In factory, the worker’s livelihood and in some cases, very survival is at stake here, the only thing at stake is ability to post witty entendre (well, semi-witty anyway) and comment on a fairly obscure taste in music. Hardly the same stakes. J

But I take your point. There is, however, a flaw in your argument. We really have no stake in this board other than the enjoyment we get from meeting here. The only one with anything to lose is PeterK as it represents an investment of time and labor that might mean his livelihood. SO in a sense, you have got your wish. The Worker has control over the factory.

He has to decide what is acceptable and what is not because, ultimately, he will be the one to suffer or prosper as the site does. I wouldn’t dream of walking into a bookstore and telling the proprietor how to run his business just because I shop there.

That being said I like some of your ideas.

1. The idea of a forum for off-topic posts has been discussed before if I recall, and as with every other separate forum, engenders complaints from those who are afraid that people will miss the post. But it seems a simple idea, and if it made everyone a little happier, I am sure that PeterK wouldn’t be adverse to it. I would certainly post there and I am sure others would too.

2. The idea of notifying a person that a thread is going to be closed seems a good one. It would also allow the person to edit and modify the thread to keep it from being closed in the first place. It would also allow the person with the offending to explain what they were trying to say. Maybe it was just worded poorly. We all have days when what we think never actually reaches the keyboard.

3. Your idea of voting/polling on whether someone should be banned, sounds extremely divisive and likely to lead to politicking on both sides of the question along with the partisan rancor with already have in Washington. It would bring too much disharmony instead of restoring harmony. Because no matter how the vote turned out, someone would be upset and what would be gained?

It also seems unnecessary considering that so few people have ever actually been banned. I know of only two: Vulcan Touch and Ford Thaxton.

As an aside, you mentioned in a previous post that “ I guess I don’t think…harsh words to each other or the Kommandant are really all that horrible or threaten to destroy things as others here seem to think they would.”

"I positive that PeterK doesn’t just ban someone without discussing the issue via e-mail."

Not true. Ford was banned without being told so by Peter.

In fact, Peter has "hinted" that he would like to ban me on occasion, merely for contributing my opinions, which are contrary to his. I have emails and saved threads to back that up. If someone is trying to foster a sense of community, then that is all fine and dandy - but when it starts turning into a facist regime where any "opposing" viewpoints are immediately met with criticism, warnings, and (ultimately) deletion, then you have to start questioning the motives of the "leader".

As for the analogy of this place being like a "private club", I don't know ANY private clubs where you can just walk in at any time without being a member, listen to what other people are saying, and fill in a form (at an empty desk) and suddenly become a member.

While you point out that only 2 people (that you're aware of) have been banned, think of the others who have come close to being banned merely for speaking their mind...

For those of you who want to continue to post off-topic threads, go somewhere else and do it. There are several billion other websites where you can discuss such topics as the fine art of cheese hugging, rhinoplasty in Ancient Greece, leotards in public bathrooms, and why we should all love Dabney Coleman and realize how many laws were broken by the characters in the film 9 to 5.

The thread that Dan alluded to ("Battle With The Webmaster") was an attempt at humor based on another thread, where someone mentioned that he/she was glad this place wasn't Filmtracks, where people do battle with the webmaster (really feel bad for Christian) and have heated religious debates (people are bad toward Christians). Something like that. It was meant to be a chuckle that would be seen by some and then deleted from the board. Just a joke.

This thread is going too far (almost pulled a Buford and wrote "to far"!). For those who only scroll to the bottom of pages to see what's new, I'll sum it up.

1.) Lou and Dan want Ford.
2.) Chris is a populist (just kidding)
3.) PeterK is a slime and shouldn't be allowed to have rules. This is not Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
4.) I'm still mad at Al for not wanting Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
5.) Dabney Coleman is/was underrated.
6.) Men shouldn't be named "Blaze".
7.) Remember to shake the orange juice BEFORE you open the carton! Common mistake!
8.) I shook hands with Jerry Goldsmith. We are currently seeing other people.
9.) There'd better be some DAMNED good film music coming out soon, as we're running out of things to talk about! When the topic is Ford A. Thaxton, you have to ask yourself, "Why HAVEN'T I bought The Blue Lagoon by Basil Poledouris?"

Have a pleasant Sunday! The Globes are on tonight! My prediction---Tan Dun. Him, or Ennio Morricone, whoever "they" are.

Thanks for your time,
Shaun

NP---Hollow Man (in track 10, you'll hear the sound of me sharply brushing my teeth directly after the "BUM-BUM" of the drums in the opening; sorry about that, folks!)

"I guess you enjoy being Mr. Kelly's pet...."

Whatever that means.

I'm just not a fan of as*holes. That's all.

quote:

---

In fact, Peter has "hinted" that he would like to ban me on occasion, merely for contributing my opinions, which are contrary to his. I have emails and saved threads to back that up. If someone is trying to foster a sense of community, then that is all fine and dandy - but when it starts turning into a facist regime where any "opposing" viewpoints are immediately met with criticism, warnings, and (ultimately) deletion, then you have to start questioning the motives of the "leader".

---

dude, Peter Kelly is hardly the second coming of Joseph Stalin.

get over this "I'm about to be banned for speaking my mind" horsecrap.

webmasters tolerate A TON of crap.
Christian Clemmensen took a lot of stuff when Ford went hogwild over there calling people's sanity into question.
Clemmensen finally did something.
Didn't ban him, but it seemed awfully close to happening, from the outsider's vantage point. But the difference lay in the fact that Ford was not banned, and Peter DID exercise his option to ban Ford - rightly or wrongly.
As I recall, Ford was given a lot of leeway at this site.
Should Peter have emailed Ford?
Sure, but practically, was there anyway it wasn't going to change the outcome? doubtful.

There is speaking your mind, and there is being speaking with a certain level of decorum.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
this is like the military. It ain't a democracy. Follow the rules or we'll kick your ass out.

Ford for some reason, Ford has shown a propensity for disliking Peter and this website. He won't say it outright, but it is evident and can be inferred from the tone of his posts at other websites and forums.
For what reason, I have no idea. and he's certainly entitled to his opinion.
but after the millionth time, it gets enough already. The point is made. Move on.

I believe most people that post at this website want to have a good time, and engage in meaningful fellowship with other film music fans.

I like this place, I like FSM, I like the rmm newsgroup, and I like Filmtracks.
I will defend them all to the hilt.
Indeed, I have done so before, and do so again.

if you don't play by the rules, you usually get kicked out. Same applies here.

I tell you, I have more respect for a man that has rules and enforces them vigorously than a man that has rules, and doesn't.

I have no respect for a man that cries about what amounts nothing under the guise of First Amendment victimization.

As Shaun so eloquently stated:
"It's the f***ing internet."

let us all get a bit of perspective.

NP -- ROTJ

Your statement simply isn't true. I have posted many times (over 70 different threads) on this bboard answering questions and contributing to discussions. Take a guess how many times YOU then pop your head in with some childish remark that then drags the whole thing down.

In fact your decision to add posts to the "offensive" off-topic "Battle With the Webmaster" thread merely confirms this.

And for the record, I never said "I want Ford back on this website". Get your facts straight.

Dan

"Your statement simply isn't true. I have posted many times (over 70 different threads) on this bboard answering questions and contributing to discussions."

8 times out of 10 you are doing all of the things that I described (shameless plugging, shameless plugging, name-dropping, defending Thaxton, etc.). Why couldn't Roger from Intrada stick around? I LIKED him!

Wait, wait! Dan has some more!
"Take a guess how many times YOU then pop your head in with some childish remark that then drags the whole thing down."

I got a number for you. 13. Drags the whole thing down! Hah!

"In fact your decision to add posts to the 'offensive' off-topic 'Battle With the Webmaster' thread merely confirms this."

Hey, I created the damned thread! I didn't add anything to it until I realized that people either didn't get the joke, or just felt like bein' silly! Re-read the post again.

The wrath of Goldwasser ended with this sentence:
"And for the record, I never said "I want Ford back on this website". Get your facts straight."

From your posts, it's clear that you think that Thaxton was "wronged" by Peter Kelly. What is one SUPPOSED to imply from this? What ARE you implying, if not that you want him back on this website?

If I were getting CDs for free, talking to composers whose music I "purchase" (you might want to look that one up, Dan), and attending "special screenings" with filmmakers, I wonder if I'd be as much of a dickhead as some of the people who ACTUALLY get to do these things.

I smell a comeback line for that. It's about a mile away.

Thank you,
Shaun
Purchaser and Word-Spreader of Film Music

[Message edited by dgoldwas on 01-21-2001]

but that I think would have escaped your notice.

I sense that you're just bitter that your involvement in the film music industry is limited to being a clerk at a record store in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

You say that 8/10 times I post it's to "shamelessly plug" my own site or name-drop, etc. That's just not true, and I have the threads to prove it.

As for Ford, I am not implying anything. The only thing I said on this matter (which you would have known if you actually READ the posts in full before having your knee-jerk reaction) was that it seemed a bit unfair of Peter to ban Ford without emailing him first. Scan up this thread, and you'll see that.

And for the record, I probably buy more soundtrack albums than you sell. You just wouldn't know that, being stuck in Altoona, would you? And by implying that people who are in the industry are "dickheads" for attending screenings, interviewing composers, etc., says more about your ignorance and failures than you care to admit.

Anyways, you (once again!) broke PeterK's rule about keeping it civil.... you never learn, do you.

Don't you people ever make sex?

Ahhh... but you should!

"I sense that you're just bitter that your involvement in the film music industry is limited to being a clerk at a record store in Altoona, Pennsylvania."

Bitter? Nah. Like I said, I'm not partial to as*holes. I've probably said this before, but why can't NORMAL people have some pull in the soundtrack community? Why are they all such elitists? Dan?

"You say that 8/10 times I post it's to "shamelessly plug" my own site or name-drop, etc. That's just not true, and I have the threads to prove it."

I could be slightly off on that number (8/10), but look at all of your posts. Shameless plugs far outweigh your "normal" posts.

"As for Ford, I am not implying anything. The only thing I said on this matter (which you would have known if you actually READ the posts in full before having your knee-jerk reaction) was that it seemed a bit unfair of Peter to ban Ford without emailing him first. Scan up this thread, and you'll see that."

Most people know your "relationship" to Thaxton. Come on, you can say it. You're partial, you rascal!

"And for the record, I probably buy more soundtrack albums than you sell. You just wouldn't know that, being stuck in Altoona, would you?"

That's not much of a statement. That could mean that you have purchased 7 soundtrack albums. Altoona isn't exactly the Mecca of Soundtrack Purists.

"And by implying that people who are in the industry are "dickheads" for attending screenings, interviewing composers, etc., says more about your ignorance and failures than you care to admit."

I'm not implying that all people who do those things are dickheads. Some of them are cool. You and Thaxton, however.....the term was practically created for you two goons. Hey, that's another good word!

"Anyways, you (once again!) broke PeterK's rule about keeping it civil.... you never learn, do you."

Apparently not. Man, this is HARD! Consider me banned!

I may just be a "lowly record store employee", but at least I have friends in the REAL world!

Shaun

Heh. You'd be surprised how many normal people have pull in the soundtrack community. Of course, you just happen to think that those people are "elitist"... when that is far from the truth. (Although I suppose it depends on what your definition of "elitist" is - no doubt yours differs from mine.)

"Shameless plugs far outweigh your "normal" posts."

Umm... not based on what I'm looking at... Dunno what you're looking at.

"Most people know your "relationship" to Thaxton."

Oh? Let's hear it! So, Shaun, what IS my "relationship" to Thaxton?

"Altoona isn't exactly the Mecca of Soundtrack Purists"

Mmm hmm. No comment.

"You and Thaxton, however.....the term was practically created for you two goons."

So once again, you're resorting to childish namecalling due to your inability to carry forth a mature debate? You make me sad.

"...at least I have friends in the REAL world!"

That's wonderful - as do I. Again, you're TRYING to make this personal, but you just keep failing. You don't know jack about me or my personal life, and I don't know jack about yours (beyond what you tell everyone). So let's not try to kid ourselves, okay? You're grasping at straws, and it just isn't working.

Dan

The discussion about the necessity of living in L.A. to be officially knighted as "working in the industry" is silly. Roman Ennio Morricone has had the same impact, if not more, on Hollywood than Jerry Goldsmith. Heck, Morricone doesn't even speak the same language as Hollywood (but then again, we can always argue that the language composers speak in is "universal," right?). Cars, planes, the telephone, the Internet; these have all brought (and continue to bring) the global community closer and closer together, no matter what you do to make a buck.

This bit about me having to email Ford to tell him he's banned is more silliness. If it's so necessary to email someone who's been banned, the programmers of this message board would have included a feature that automatically sends an email message to the banned party once the "ban button" was pushed. But, they didn't. Call it cowardly, call it brave. It doesn't matter.

Finally, to Shaun and Dan. I think even Lou has lost interest in your back-and-forthness. Even I haven't read it all, but I will admit I am impressed that the Kid from Altoona has demanded so much attention from those in the industry! That should prove something right there.

Umm... Peter, where was that ever mentioned in this thread? Can you please stick to the topic, and in doing so, only things that are stated in the topic.

"This bit about me having to email Ford to tell him he's banned is more silliness."

Well, it's a little thing called courtesy. Just a tip.

"I am impressed that the Kid from Altoona has demanded so much attention from those in the industry!"

He can demand anything he wants - whether he gets it or not is another matter comletely! And if by "those in the industry", you refer to me and Ford, then you're view of the industry is rather small.....

If you're so concerned about having a bboard system where everyone plays by your rules, and is kind and courteous, don't you think you should apply the same standards to those you have a differing viewpoint with as well as those you agree with?