|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 3, 2018 18:54:46 GMT
I’ve had several people PM me saying they were a little bothered by your posting the same material in multiple places as well. Why would they PM you about me? Even if English is not your "first language" you know enough English to read the LINK about "franchise" that has been provided to you several times. I mentioned that because of that joke; I wasn't using it as an excuse for not understanding your point. I do understand it. I simply don't think it's a big deal. I don’t know; I can’t speak for them. Maybe they’ve interacted with you before too? All I know is that it happened.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 3, 2018 22:15:50 GMT
I don’t know; I can’t speak for them. Maybe they’ve interacted with you before too? All I know is that it happened. But why you? Are you in charge of this site or something?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 3, 2018 22:20:11 GMT
I don’t know; I can’t speak for them. Maybe they’ve interacted with you before too? All I know is that it happened. But why you? Are you in charge of this site or something? 1. I don’t know. Maybe because you and I have had something of a disagreement. 2. No. Are you insinuating that it’s not true or something? I’m wondering why you keep asking.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 3, 2018 23:17:20 GMT
Buster Keaton's The General is a masterpice of the silent cinema, though not liked at the time of it's release, Variety magazine gave it a realy bad review. As time goes by more and more moviegoers have understood it's brilliance, and early television that had to fill out time slots helped a lot. You can argue till hell freezes over. This is my only post on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 4, 2018 9:28:44 GMT
Are you insinuating that it’s not true or something? It just seemed weird to me that users would PM other users (who aren't in charge of the site) to talk about a user they have a problem with. And it seemed convenient that you would only bring it up now. That being said, you don't strike me as a liar. Buster Keaton's The General is a masterpice of the silent cinema, though not liked at the time of it's release, Variety magazine gave it a realy bad review. As time goes by more and more moviegoers have understood it's brilliance, and early television that had to fill out time slots helped a lot. You can argue till hell freezes over. Why would I argue with you? What you said are facts; not opinions.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Nov 4, 2018 13:47:07 GMT
Just a word of encouragement to vits, here. I like your threads. Sometimes an opinion is more interesting than a review and should serve to initiate an interesting discussion.
By the way, I think you misunderstood teleadm's remark. He just doesn't like arguments and does not want to be involved in this one.
-Llanwydd
|
|