[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> this thread has rather expanded beyond its original topic, but isn't that just the way of threads! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah, threads always seem to do that. I just thought, "Why they are called 'threads'?", when I read your post. Well, I think of it as a spider web. It starts off from a single thread, but the farther it goes, the more it spreads out and the bigger it gets. It can get complicated and tangled or sometimes, it can be clear and neat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> it would be difficult to respond directly to points made on this thread by posting them elsewhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, but it's seems more organized that way. Rather than having the discussion stray from the topic, you can continue the 'side-topic' in another thread. Not many people decide to do that. Sometimes it's hard to do that. But it really can be beneficial if you continued the discussion in another topic if it clearly strays from the topic of the original post. But it can't always happen.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I don't dislike your complaints, Willie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thanks . But I wasn't singling you out. I was refering to everyone who does care. Because not everyone is interested like you are, so it's hard to say a general statement like that.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood that threads like this were supposed to involve discussion, rather than unremitting agreement. Most threads would surely be rather dull and short-lived if everyone agreed on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, they can be like that if it is a thread that is based on whether someone agrees/disagrees with a topic, and everyone agrees (or disagrees). But that's not the case here. This thread was specifically intended for a one-sided critique on why people didn't like Arwen in the movies. Now, it may be boring because the discussion is one-sided, but that's ok. This thread was created by the the person with the original post, and that person (Lily Ahern) wanted to find something out. And Lily Ahern isn't going to find out what she wanted from posts that state the pros of Arwen, and no cons. Therefore, when you don't state why you don't like Arwen in the movies, you are not contributing to the thread and it is not the right thing to do. Keep reading, but I am going to shift over to Diamond18:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Lily Ahern defended Arwen in her post. That's a fact. So, right off the bat that was an invitation for opposing viewpoints. The topic starter herself did what you said the thread isn't about! Now, in both these quotes you just did what lindil so kindly pointed out is prohibited: you told someone with different opinions to bug off. This goes for everyone, not just people who think that no one should complain about the movie. There should be both kinds of posts in this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ok, just because she defended Arwen, doesn't mean it was ok for anyone else to defend her in this thread. It wasn't an invitation for opposing viewpoints. It was just stating that Lily Ahern liked Arwen in the movie, but can't understand why others didn't. So to find out, Lily Ahern asks those who didn't like her in the movie to state why. This thread does not progress when people state why they did like Arwen in the movie, it only progresses when they state why tehy didn't like her. All threads are not the same. You have to follow the guidelines for the particular section of the forum, but you also have to follow the guidelines that the thread-starter sets.<P>And I think the only way that this can get cleared up is for Lily Ahern to clearly set the guidelines. So my side of the argument is based on what Lily Ahern said in the original post. She only wants the cons of Arwen. It's what she [indirectly] said in the original post. And I'll quote you Diamond18 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If I misunderstand you, it is because I literally interpret what you type as meaning just what you typed. You can hardly blame me for that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So if i misunderstand Lily Ahern, it's because I took her post literally, and Diamond18, you can hardly blame me for that. So you can see where I'm coming from, as I can you. I would just hope that Lily Ahern sets things straight here. I'll PM Lily Ahern. I believe that the topic-starter has a responsibility. And that includes moderating their own threads, setting clear guidelines, and if they fould out what they needed to know, they shoud do one of two things; 1.Change the guidelines, in this case it would allow and open discussion, and tehy would not have to moderate if they didn't want to after that. [or] 2.Close the thread; just end it there. And I would hope they would choose 1 instead of 2. I wish that this responsibility would be part of the guidelines of the forums.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> you told someone with different opinions to bug off <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I didn't do that. I just pointed out that opposing views are not allowed here (from what I infered from the original post). I said they could make their own thread where opposing views are allowed.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sorry to get you ticked, Willie...because I really don't feel angry myself about anything. So if any of the following seems like I did take offense, it shouldn't, because I didn't. It just gives me a change to explain further. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, it's ok. I enjoy it, as strange as that sounds. I don't take offense, I can just get frustrated and angry, but that doesn't mean I'm angry at you. I love the heat of the argument, don't you? This is one reason I love the Barrow-Downs so much.<P>Lush<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well, as someone who couldn't be bothered to even flip through the LOTR before I saw PJ's "Fellowship" (what can I say? I thought I had left fantasy behind in middle school somewhere), I was delighted to have all of a sudden discovered a wonderful book, and grateful to the one person who had lead me to it, Peter Jackson, whether he did it in a heavy-handed, Hollywod-esque manner or not. A year later, I was in the front row, cringing at every word Faramir said (not that it prevented me from admiring those lips and eyes, but that was almost all he had going for him at that point anyway), but enjoying myself nonetheless. And for me, Jackson's movies were worth it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well that's kind of paradoxical (if that's even a word). Someone once called me selfish because I said I would like it better if PJ never made the movie. I felt it as an insult to the Tolkien fans (of the books before teh movie), myself being one. He called me selfish becuase if PJ never made the movies, many people would not have been introduced to the books. Which is true, but that is not why I wish it was never made. It is just so insulting to me (and to Tolkien of course). But it's just a great thing that came out of something I view as bad. It's just so bittersweet. But if it came down to it, and I had to choose if PJ would or would not make the films, I guess I'd choose to have Pj make them....there I go again rambling on. There was a point I was trying to make but now I forgot what it was and can't remember where I was going with this story. I really hate that. Sorry for wasting anyone's time.