Pointer to DVD Frequently Asked Questions List

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Stan Brown, Mar 28, 2005.

  1. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    You've said it upsets you. You haven't said why it upsets you except that
    you don't like the other FAQ posted too closely to your own. You haven't
    provided any reason why this is a bad thing though.

    Jay G., Apr 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sucks to be you. Maybe you should have realized how thin your skin was
    before you insisted on posting a FAQ no one needed, wanted, or will use.

    This entire situation is your own doing. This group was happy with the
    FAQ we had and the posters we had. You chose to make an issue here with
    your useless FAQ and your crying of "spam". Now that the issue is made,
    you wonder why you get responses like this. Get a clue: we DON'T value
    your input, and consider your activities trolling.


    Aaron J. Bossig

    Aaron J. Bossig, Apr 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Stan Brown

    FAQmeister Guest

    No I didn't.


    Here is the essence of what I've said several times already:

    I've patiently answered your questions, only to have you misrepresent
    what I've said in order to further your own agenda. What a shock! I had
    no idea such things could happen in a newsgroup.
    FAQmeister, Apr 1, 2005
  4. Stan Brown

    FAQmeister Guest

    The only people I see complaining are a tiny group of thin-skinned
    losers, such as yourself, who have the mistake idea that one must seek
    their approval before reporting spammers or posting a faq. Of course
    they are quite delusional therefore easy to spot, because they often use
    "we" when they can really only speak for their own pitiful opinions.
    FAQmeister, Apr 1, 2005
  5. I didn't mention approval at any time. I simply said that the response
    you got from this group indicated that your actions weren't popular, and
    therefore, you have no reason to be surprised at how you are treated now.


    Aaron J. Bossig

    Aaron J. Bossig, Apr 1, 2005
  6. Lots, actually.


    Aaron J. Bossig

    Aaron J. Bossig, Apr 1, 2005
  7. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    So you saying "I don't appreciate it" isn't the same as you being upset
    about it?

    Again, where is the harm in the two FAQs being posted at near the same time
    each week aside from you not "appreciating" it?

    Jay G., Apr 2, 2005
  8. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    Considering you've labeled everyone who voices a dissenting opinion as
    thin-skinned losers, this is not surprising.
    Reporting posts that a certain percentage of the newsgroup valued is an
    elitist move. And while one doesn't have to get everyone's approval to
    make a FAQ, one would at least assume that someone who claims to have made
    a FAQ that speaks for the whole group would at least attempt to provide a
    FAQ that accurately represents the group.

    Your FAQ doesn't represent the group. It only offers your views, views
    which others disagree with. You have a right to post your views, others
    have a right to post their dissent. The posting of the alternate FAQ is
    the least objectionable dissenting action possible, yet you still whine
    about it like you're being unjustly persecuted.

    Jay G., Apr 2, 2005
  9. Stan Brown

    Will Riley Guest

    Pretending that spam isn't spam is stupid. Using useless terms like
    "certain percetange" and "valued" ignores the fact the FAQhead
    reported a long-time spammer. He reported a spammer who said he'd
    stop spamming, but only decreased the frequency of his spams.
    Speaking of stupid, calling people elitist is nothing more than an
    appeal to the ignorant. When you called FAQfreak "elitist", what you
    really saying was, "I'm Jay G. and I don't know anything at all, so
    you should pay attention to my ignorant opinions."
    Neither you, any FAQ poster, any spammer, nor any spammer "accurately
    represents the group." Get over yourself.
    Neither do you, but you keep posting away.
    Will Riley, Apr 2, 2005
  10. Stan Brown

    Will Riley Guest

    You certainly did, but we knew the village threw you out because of
    your idiocy.
    Will Riley, Apr 2, 2005
  11. Stan Brown

    Jay Stewart Guest

    Shut your face and go get me a beer.
    Jay Stewart, Apr 2, 2005
  12. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    Whether or not a certain post constitutes spam is a matter of opinion. The
    difference is that I noted that the views that they weren't spam were only
    opinions, while you and Meister view your opinions as absolutes, which is
    It's an appeal to reasonable people who don't seek to impose their views on
    an entire newsgroup, whether by reporting posts they personally don't like
    or by trying to hide them in what should be an objective document.

    Having differing views is what reasonable people do. Saying your views are
    the only correct views and are beyond reproach is elitist.
    Correct, so Meister should stop attacking other FAQs because his views are
    not those of the groups. Note that I didn't say a FAQ ever could
    accurately represent a group, I said a FAQ should *attempt* to. Meister
    never even attempts to make his FAQ a more accurate reflection of the
    I never said I did. I'm not the one changing my screenname, hiding my views
    in a FAQ, and attacking other FAQs and those who post links to them.

    Jay G., Apr 2, 2005
  13. Stan Brown

    Justin Guest

    Jay G. wrote on [Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:06:02 -0600]:
    Hardly. SPAM is SPAM.
    Justin, Apr 2, 2005
  14. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    Okay then, define it.

    Jay G., Apr 2, 2005
  15. Stan Brown

    Will Riley Guest

    Your ever-changing whine can be summarized succintly: "Spammers who
    say their spam isn't really spam may continue. FAQmeister who says
    his FAQ is really frequently asked questions may not continue." This
    is hypocrisy.

    The articles to which FAQboy objected were, are, and continue to be
    spam. This is a "matter of" what the word spam means, even if it
    contradicts your "opinion."
    It's never been anything more than an appeal to the ignorant who
    desire to wallow in their ignorance lest foreign thoughts intrude.
    They simply fancy themselves non-elitist, else they would be forced to
    admit their ignorance to themselves.
    Certainly, your appeal to the ignorant may succeed... but only the
    ignorant will be swayed.
    Your opinion of the "views ... of the groups" is unjustified. Your
    opinion does not represent any group.

    If you think Meister should stop proferring his opinions, take your
    own medicine and stop proferring yours.
    Your opinion of the what a "FAQ should *attempt*" is unjustified.
    Your opinion does not represent any group.
    Your opinion of an "accurate reflection of the group" is unjustified.
    Your opinion does not represent any group.
    No, you didn't. It would have been more honest for you to do so,
    rather than simply pretend your opinions did represent "the groups."
    He's publishing his views in public, just as you are doing.
    He pointed out, to the great consternation of some self-proclaimed
    non-elitists, the presence of advertising in the DVD Demystified FAQ.
    This raised a number of unjustifiable protests that those
    advertisements were not advertisements; this is entirely analogous to
    the unjustifiable arguments that some spam isn't spam.
    His hypocrisy shows. Why do you insist on following suit?
    Will Riley, Apr 2, 2005
  16. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    Nobody said he couldn't post his FAQ. Note that his FAQ post actually went
    by uncommented one. Its the fact that he raises a holy stink if someone
    dares to offer an alternative opinion that I'm criticizing in this
    particular thread.
    Okay, then define spam.
    Swaying the ignorant is what Meister tries to do with his FAQ, which is why
    he gets upset when the other one is posted. God forbid people have a
    choice and make up their own minds.

    My opinion represents part of the group.
    I personally think he should stop trying to hide is personal opinions in
    what should be an objective FAQ. But enough about that, he can post his
    FAQ if he wants. He shouldn't be surprised though when dissenting opinions
    are offered, nor should he try to silence them. Picking fights with the
    alternative FAQ is childish.
    I'm not allowed to voice my opinions?
    As a FAQ, a representation of the group, not just as himself. He even
    changes his screenname when he posts it, to try and lend it more authority.
    You're thinking of a different thread. That thread is long gone. This
    thread is about Meister continuing to whine about the posting of a
    different FAQ than his even after the people who disagree with him long ago
    stopped directly attacking his weekly postings of his own FAQ.
    If you agree that Meister is hypocritical, why do you defend him?

    Jay G., Apr 2, 2005
  17. Stan Brown

    Will Riley Guest

    Your stink is holier than his? Less holier? You're just as stinky.
    Okay, then DYOFHW.
    So you're criticizing him for something you also do. That's called
    Your opinion represents nothing more than you
    I personally think you should stop criticizing him for things you also
    obviously do.
    You shouldn't be surprised when dissenting opinions are offered.
    That's a rather obvious contortion of my statement. If you're allowed
    to "voice [your] opinions", so is FAQman. If you're allowed to
    criticise FAQman on grounds of your choice, he's allowed to criticise
    others on his grounds. You didn't mean to imply otherwise, did you?
    You've invented without justification a requirement that a FAQ is "a
    representation of the group". You said previously (as quoted above)
    your "opinion represents part of the group". If your statement is
    false, you should admit your error and retract it; if your statement
    is true, the FAQman's "opinion [also] represents part of the group."
    You did mean to say you want to it both ways, did you?
    Now you're ruling on the topic of the thread. FAQman posts his FAQ
    and complains that others are following up with pointers to the other
    FAQ. You're complaining that he's complaining. You aren't saying
    that complaints are not permissable, but complaints about complaints
    are permissable, are you?
    That's a rather obvious contortion of my statement. I didn't defend
    him. I pointed out then and now the hypocrisy of your whines and the
    lack of justification for each of your statements.
    Will Riley, Apr 2, 2005
  18. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    So you can't provide a definition of spam. I know what I think spam is, I
    wanted to know what you think spam is.

    I'm not part of the group?
    I've written and posted a FAQ? Where? You'd think I'd know about it.
    You don't think a FAQ that is posted as the "alt.video.dvd" FAQ should
    represent, or at least try to represent, the group as a whole, dissenting
    opinions and all? You feel that an article that is written, titled, and
    even signed as representing the group is an okay place to forward personal
    His opinions do represent part of the group. The problem is the way he
    presents them in what should be an objective document, without giving
    proper balance to other opinions.
    He didn't just complain about the alternate FAQ. He outright attacked it,
    calling it spam and calling the poster names.

    Stan's posts are a civilized response to Meister's repetitious posting of
    the same article every week. Stan's FAQ post does not attack the other
    FAQ, merely offers an alternative for people to compare and judge for
    themselves. Meister can't be civilized in return though.
    Isn't attacking my "hypocrisy" while being long silent about Meister's
    hypocrisy a little, well, hypocritical?

    Jay G., Apr 2, 2005
  19. Stan Brown

    FAQmeister Guest

    I made one comment in response to the OP. There was no indication of any
    emotion except amusement. Meanwhile, you are still carrying on about it,
    so if anyone should be characterized as being "upset" and raising a
    "holy stink" that would be you.
    Contrary to what has often been asserted, there are no personal opinions
    of mine in the faq.

    The statement in the faq that some people find so objectionable, "All
    advertising, whether "on-topic" or not, is subject to being reported to
    the sender's ISP and/or web host." is not an opinion. It is a statement
    of fact.
    I have repeatedly pointed out the obvious fact that "alt group faqs
    don't have any authority," so I wouldn't be attempting to lend *more*
    authority to a document that has *no* authority.

    Your *opinions* as to my motives and emotions have no basis in fact.
    FAQmeister, Apr 3, 2005
  20. Stan Brown

    Jay G. Guest

    That you responded to it belies you being upset about it, and you have
    admitted in your follow-up posts that you "don't appreciate" the other FAQ
    being posted.

    This debate has come up before. What is obvious is that there are people
    who don't agree with your FAQ and that some prefer the other one. Stan's
    posting of the alternate FAQ is a non-offensive counter to your weekly
    postings of your own FAQ. All of those who object to your FAQ have been
    reasonable and have stopped posting objections to your weekly postings.
    However, you aren't civil enough to do the same.

    Jay G., Apr 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.