DVD VERDICT

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Lookingglass, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Lookingglass

    Lookingglass Guest

    Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post MORE dvd
    reviews here...? I very much appreciate reading the reviews... and like
    another poster stated... it sometimes reminds me about a dvd that I want to
    get OR perhaps it piques my interest in a dvd that I might not have thought
    of getting...

    KEEP THE REVIEWS COMING


    Dave Chabot www.Shemakhan.com
     
    Lookingglass, Jun 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lookingglass

    Justin Guest

    Lookingglass wrote on [Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:27:04 GMT]:
    > Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post MORE dvd
    > reviews here...?


    Funny, I haven't seen them post a review here for years.
     
    Justin, Jun 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <Ir6Ac.46675$eu.34030@attbi_s02> (Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:27:04
    +0000), Lookingglass wrote:

    > Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post MORE dvd
    > reviews here...?


    Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post ANY dvd
    reviews here...?

    > KEEP THE REVIEWS COMING


    POST A REVIEW WHEN READY
     
    Hamilcar Barca, Jun 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Lookingglass

    Brett Guest

    Hamilcar Barca wrote:

    > In article <Ir6Ac.46675$eu.34030@attbi_s02> (Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:27:04
    > +0000), Lookingglass wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post MORE dvd
    >>reviews here...?

    >
    >
    > Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post ANY dvd
    > reviews here...?
    >
    >
    >>KEEP THE REVIEWS COMING

    >
    >
    > POST A REVIEW WHEN READY


    Why doesn't someone just copy & paste the reviews here as their
    "notifications" are posted, to save us all having to visit the site?
     
    Brett, Jun 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Lookingglass

    Richard C. Guest

    Posting here takes up bandwidth and eliminates older posts faster.
    Posting LINKS to the reviews is the most appropriate method.

    The current postings are just fine.

    ==================================
    "Brett" <> wrote in message
    news:40d16bd0$0$12960$...
    : Hamilcar Barca wrote:
    :
    : > In article <Ir6Ac.46675$eu.34030@attbi_s02> (Thu, 17 Jun 2004
    01:27:04
    : > +0000), Lookingglass wrote:
    : >
    : >
    : >>Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post MORE
    dvd
    : >>reviews here...?
    : >
    : >
    : > Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post ANY dvd
    : > reviews here...?
    : >
    : >
    : >>KEEP THE REVIEWS COMING
    : >
    : >
    : > POST A REVIEW WHEN READY
    :
    : Why doesn't someone just copy & paste the reviews here as their
    : "notifications" are posted, to save us all having to visit the site?
    :
     
    Richard C., Jun 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Lookingglass

    Justin Guest

    Richard C. wrote on [Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:35:55 -0700]:
    > Posting here takes up bandwidth and eliminates older posts faster.
    > Posting LINKS to the reviews is the most appropriate method.
    >
    > The current postings are just fine.


    So sayeth a top poster.
     
    Justin, Jun 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Lookingglass

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:27:04 GMT, "Lookingglass" <>
    wrote:

    >Do you think there might be a way to get DVD VERDICT to post MORE dvd
    >reviews here...? I very much appreciate reading the reviews... and like
    >another poster stated... it sometimes reminds me about a dvd that I want to
    >get OR perhaps it piques my interest in a dvd that I might not have thought
    >of getting...
    >
    >KEEP THE REVIEWS COMING


    What reveiws??? I haven't seen a single review from DVD VERDICT in this
    group.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Jun 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Lookingglass

    Writer R5 Guest

    >Why doesn't someone just copy & paste the reviews here as their
    >"notifications" are posted, to save us all having to visit the site?


    I used to do that years ago, but sometimes it would come out with some HTML
    coding on certain programs and people would sometimes type, "Why can't you just
    post a link?"

    Mark
    GENRE ONLINE.NET: The Web Resource For Home Video Entertainment & More
    http://www.genreonline.net
    Mark A. Rivera - Writer/Reviewer/Editor/Webmaster
     
    Writer R5, Jun 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Lookingglass

    FAQmeister Guest

    "Writer R5" <> wrote in message
    news:
    >> Why doesn't someone just copy & paste the reviews here as their
    >> "notifications" are posted, to save us all having to visit the site?

    >
    > I used to do that years ago, but sometimes it would come out with
    > some HTML coding on certain programs and people would sometimes type,
    > "Why can't you just post a link?"


    Pretty weak.

    You can scrub all html from any text copied from a web page or elsewhere
    by pasting it into notepad, copying it again and then pasting it where
    you need it.

    And you don't need (nor is it desirable) for you to post every review
    you do. Post one review per week, with a list of the other reviews made
    available for that week on your site (without the individual links) and
    a link in your sig would be sufficient.

    But I suppose you wouldn't consider changing anything as long as you're
    getting away with spamming this group constantly. Or would you?
    --
    Buford T. Justice
    The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
    http://www.geocities.com/altvideodvd/
     
    FAQmeister, Jun 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Lookingglass

    Justin Guest

    FAQmeister wrote on [Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:26:45 -0700]:
    > "Writer R5" <> wrote in message
    > news:
    >>> Why doesn't someone just copy & paste the reviews here as their
    >>> "notifications" are posted, to save us all having to visit the site?

    >>
    >> I used to do that years ago, but sometimes it would come out with
    >> some HTML coding on certain programs and people would sometimes type,
    >> "Why can't you just post a link?"

    >
    > Pretty weak.
    >
    > You can scrub all html from any text copied from a web page or elsewhere
    > by pasting it into notepad, copying it again and then pasting it where
    > you need it.
    >
    > And you don't need (nor is it desirable) for you to post every review
    > you do. Post one review per week, with a list of the other reviews made
    > available for that week on your site (without the individual links) and
    > a link in your sig would be sufficient.


    A review does not need to be in HTML anyway, it's a freaking piece of
    text.
     
    Justin, Jun 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Lookingglass

    NightStalker Guest

    In article <2go.com>,
    says...

    > A review does not need to be in HTML anyway, it's a freaking piece of
    > text.
    >


    So, despite the fact that neither of the so-called "spammers" is
    actually making any money by selling anything via their so-called
    "spam", why is it not spamming when the self-appointed FAQ - dickhead
    posts multiple messages (far more than any DVD Verdict or Genre Online
    posts recently)? And his posts all end up with a sig directing readers
    to a website too. So the accuser is at least as guilty as the ones he
    is crapping on about.

    FAQ-weirdo is a dickbrain, and a troll.

    I like having links to DVD reviews in a DVD newsgroup. I have the
    choice of whether or not to visit the links - my choice and yours.

    Now if only the FAQ-dickbrain would only piss off and leave the 99.9% of
    us who enjoy this group alone, we'd all be much happier. And for those
    who don't enjoy the group, well just unsubscribe - simple, huh?

    --

    NightStalker
     
    NightStalker, Jun 19, 2004
    #11
  12. Lookingglass

    FAQmeister Guest

    "NightStalker" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > So, despite the fact that neither of the so-called "spammers" is
    > actually making any money by selling anything via their so-called
    > "spam", why is it not spamming when the self-appointed FAQ - dickhead
    > posts multiple messages (far more than any DVD Verdict or Genre Online
    > posts recently)? And his posts all end up with a sig directing
    > readers to a website too. So the accuser is at least as guilty as
    > the ones he is crapping on about.


    It's amazing how many totally clueless people there are in this group.

    Pay attention noob:

    A faq is not advertising.
    Posting multiple messages is not advertising unless the BI is exceeded.
    A question or comment that has a link in the attached sig is NOT SPAM
    and is in fact the only acceptable method of promoting one's web site in
    non-commercial newsgroups.

    --
    Buford T. Justice
    The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
    http://www.geocities.com/altvideodvd/
     
    FAQmeister, Jun 19, 2004
    #12
  13. From the Computer Tips newsletter (likely didn't originate with them):

    Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a
    light bulb?

    A: 1,331:

    * 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the
    light bulb has been changed

    * 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
    light bulb could have been changed differently.

    * 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

    * 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
    light bulbs.

    * 53 to flame the spell checkers

    * 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light
    bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list.

    * 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.

    * 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please
    take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb

    * 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and
    alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped.

    * 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all use
    light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail
    list.

    * 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior,
    where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best
    for this technique, and what brands are faulty.

    * 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs

    * 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post
    corrected URLs.

    * 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to
    this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list.

    * 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all
    headers and footers, and then add "Me Too."

    * 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they
    cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

    * 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."

    * 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.

    * 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.

    * 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for,
    leave it here.

    * 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.
     
    Maureen Goldman, Jun 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Lookingglass

    NightStalker Guest

    In article <cb243m$nc$>, x says...

    > It's amazing how many totally clueless people there are in this group.


    Derogatory comments will earn you even less respect than you already
    have - i.e. zero. It shows a childlike mind whose only ability to
    retort is to use insults or derision. Says it all really.


    >
    > Pay attention noob:


    Noob? LOL - I've been on Usenet almost since it started (well -
    probably before Usenet started as you claim to know it) since the days
    when it was a means of communication between educational and research
    establishments, so that makes me a rather long-in-the-tooth "noob'
    methinks. It makes you look ridiculous though :)


    >
    > A faq is not advertising.
    > Posting multiple messages is not advertising unless the BI is exceeded.
    > A question or comment that has a link in the attached sig is NOT SPAM
    > and is in fact the only acceptable method of promoting one's web site in
    > non-commercial newsgroups.
    >
    >


    Nope - disagree. ANY references to websites, when used in multiple
    postings, is, according to you, unacceptable - who said that putting it
    in a sig was acceptable?. You can't have it both ways. And the fact
    that the two you are railing against aren't actually selling anything,
    seems to have escaped your notice. Their reviews are absolutely the
    same as your so-called self-appointed FAQ.

    Now I've had enough of feeding the troll, so I'm goin to bow out and not
    even respond to any more of this self-appointed vendetta crap. Firstly,
    nobody asked you to be in charge, secondly nobody WANTS you interfering,
    and thirdly you have absolutely no authority from anyone, anywhere, so
    kindly micturate off! (look it up in dictionary.com!)

    --

    NightStalker
     
    NightStalker, Jun 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Lookingglass

    FAQmeister Guest

    "NightStalker" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > In article <cb243m$nc$>, x says...
    >
    >> It's amazing how many totally clueless people there are in this
    >> group.

    >
    > Derogatory comments will earn you even less respect than you already
    > have - i.e. zero. It shows a childlike mind whose only ability to
    > retort is to use insults or derision. Says it all really.


    I see. So that wasn't you who called me FAQ-dickbrain
    and FAQ - dickhead?

    Hypocrite.

    >> Pay attention noob:

    >
    > Noob? LOL - I've been on Usenet almost since it started (well -
    > probably before Usenet started as you claim to know it) since the days
    > when it was a means of communication between educational and research
    > establishments, so that makes me a rather long-in-the-tooth "noob'
    > methinks. It makes you look ridiculous though :)


    I don't care how long you've been on usenet. It's quite clear you don't
    know what you're talking about.

    >> A faq is not advertising.
    >> Posting multiple messages is not advertising unless the BI is
    >> exceeded. A question or comment that has a link in the attached sig
    >> is NOT SPAM and is in fact the only acceptable method of promoting
    >> one's web site in non-commercial newsgroups.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Nope - disagree. ANY references to websites, when used in multiple
    > postings, is, according to you, unacceptable - who said that putting
    > it in a sig was acceptable?.


    Links in "sigs" are an accepted usenet convention that no one other than
    totally clueless noobs would complain about or try to equate with actual
    spam.

    That's not just my opinion. Here's another quote from "Advertising on
    Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It"
    ------------------
    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1/
    5. .signature advertisements.

    Typically, it is considered bad manners to put more than four lines of
    information in your .signature, regardless of what those four lines
    might
    say or contain. Gigantic ASCII pictures of dragons, for example, are
    annoying when you have to see them every time a certain person posts.

    Similarly, it's considered bad manners to put an advertisement in your
    ..signature and then post a lot of empty or nearly-empty articles simply
    to get your .signature into various newsgroups.

    On the other hand, if you post meaningful, responsible messages in
    groups
    you're actually interested in, and those messages happen to have the
    address of your Web page tacked on at the end, few people will complain.

    Just keep .signature advertisements extremely short and sweet. Let your
    Web page contain the sales pitch -- the .signature should usually be
    little more than a listing of your URL and perhaps a mention of what
    sort
    of business you're in.
    --------------------------------

    You give opinions. I give the facts and can quote official faqs to
    support what I'm saying. So perhaps you ought to read and understand
    that entire faq and the one about the BI before you weigh in on a topic
    you know nothing about.

    > You can't have it both ways. And the
    > fact that the two you are railing against aren't actually selling
    > anything, seems to have escaped your notice.


    Another totally clueless statement from you. Whether something is being
    sold within the message is irrelevant. If the poster is trying to make
    money by generating traffic for his web site, then he is "selling"
    something. Those so-called "review notices" have one purpose; to draw
    people to a web site that makes money from it's Amazon Associate links.
    Every review is tied to a "buy" icon for the DVD that is being reviewed.

    Most spam that is posted in usenet doesn't actually "sell" anything
    within the message. The messages are always some kind of an inducement
    to visit a web site where something is being sold.

    > Their reviews are
    > absolutely the same as your so-called self-appointed FAQ.


    The faq has no affililate links. The purpose of the faq is not to
    generate income.

    > Now I've had enough of feeding the troll,


    Yeah and I've had enough of morons like you who don't know what they're
    talking about accusing me of spamming.
    --
    Buford T. Justice
    The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
    http://www.geocities.com/altvideodvd/
     
    FAQmeister, Jun 20, 2004
    #15
  16. Lookingglass

    Mark Spatny Guest

    FAQmeister, says...
    > And you don't need (nor is it desirable) for you to post every review
    > you do. Post one review per week


    Wow, it wasn't enough to be the self-appointed policeman of the format
    for posting reviews, but now you are also reccomending how many posts a
    person should make per week? Is there anything else you'd like to
    comment on? Maybe you'd like us all to use the metric system, or post
    our messages bilingualy in English and Klingon? Just let us know...I'm
    sure you know best.

    In my opinion, the links to reviews are a much better service the the
    people reading alt.video.dvd than endless discussions about widescreen
    vs fullscreen. I get more useful DVD related information from those
    links than 90% of the rest of the traffic on alt.video.dvd.
     
    Mark Spatny, Jun 24, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Hunter
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    949
    Cheesypeas
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. Nozza

    DVD-R & DVD-RW & DVD+R & DVD+RW DVD-WTF

    Nozza, Dec 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,899
    Nozza
    Dec 2, 2004
  3. Hunter
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,144
    Cheesypeas
    Aug 30, 2003
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    739
    DVD Verdict
    Aug 26, 2004
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    614
    DVD Verdict
    Dec 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page