The CB.n Thread

Welcome Santa. You'll fit right in here.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Righty007 wrote:

Ouch, that hurts.

I think the only question left, for me, is: Who Is Rob Dudley really?

Who is John Galt?

Honestly, I think it's likely he might be George88 at Cb.n. Check out the second reply to Capsule and Space's thread. Notice the almost identical posting style, level of snark etc.

Just my 2 pence.

Sharky wrote:

Welcome Santa. You'll fit right in here.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Righty007 wrote:

Ouch, that hurts.

I think the only question left, for me, is: Who Is Rob Dudley really?

Honestly, I think it's likely he might be George88 at Cb.n. Check out the second reply to Capsule and Space's thread. Notice the almost identical posting style, level of snark etc.

I think the only question left for me is: Who is George88 really?

Seriously, I have no idea who that dude is. Never heard of him, never spoke to him in email or PM, never seen him post before...but yeah, definitely a lot of snarkiness there.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

"Lack of popularity"...what is this, high school? A scientific poll based on the data of 30-35 people?

more like mob mentality. click the button because that's what the noisemakers are doing. nice and safe.

A few items to address here:

Gravity's Silhouette

I understand your desire for privacy. My PM here is open, and I am encouraged that I have already received some nice comments.

Now, I don't think you are "pulling any one down". This is a CBn thread, so discussing what goes on there is fair game. Plus, it's relevant to Bond fandom, and I think you have proven that you are not only interested in this one topic.

I also understand where you are coming from about asking me to drop the subject. I have made it clear at CBn that I have received private messages about what has gone down there. I intend on keeping those messages, and especially those who sent them, private. Hence the term "private message". I get your concern about getting other posters hurt, but I don't think that will happen. If anything, the result of all of this will be that I get tossed.

I am going to continue asking questions for a little while longer, but I doubt I'll get any clear answers.

As for my own "safety" at CBn. There are no clear guidelines there, so I can be thrown out at any whimsical moment. I figure why bother even worrying about it?

Santa

Your thread turned into a mess, but it's not like I haven't created any controversy. Is that your dog that you are using for an avatar? Either way that's a good picture.

Sharky and Gravity's Silhouette

All I know about George88 is that he likes fan fiction, and he doesn't like me. I have tried communicating with him before, but he doesn't seem interested.

Capsule in Space wrote:

Santa

Your thread turned into a mess,

Well, it was supposed to be a mess, that was kind of the point. I'm a clean freak but every house has a bin. Mess has to have its place too.

And yes, that's my dog, thank you. The finest beast God ever created.

I think GS is right to want to move on from the whole CB.n thing, this is definitely a better fit for him (he is a funny fucker and many of the argumentative posts were entertaining) and while I have no objection at all to boobies, I shall probably lurk more than post.

I just wanted to point out that I find it amusing that Mr. Blofeld continues to beg his cronies at CB.n to up his reputation even while he's serving his suspension--I happened to notice it was at -12 earlier today and just a few minutes ago I saw it was at -1. How pathetic. :roll:

coco1997 wrote:

I just wanted to point out that I find it amusing that Mr. Blofeld continues to beg his cronies at CB.n to up his reputation even while he's serving his suspension--I happened to notice it was at -12 earlier today and just a few minutes ago I saw it was at -1. How pathetic. :roll:

In his defense, the reputation system does warrant an unjust and misleading first impression of some members. I can name a few that have been given negative reputations quite unfairly. I don't blame them for wanting a better rep.

coco1997 wrote:

I just wanted to point out that I find it amusing that Mr. Blofeld continues to beg his cronies at CB.n to up his reputation even while he's serving his suspension--I happened to notice it was at -12 earlier today and just a few minutes ago I saw it was at -1. How pathetic. :roll:

Another aspect of this situation (out of several) that I find odd. How does Mr. Blofeld have "cronies", and why would someone want to be one?

Might just be puppet accounts.

Capsule in Space wrote:

Another aspect of this situation (out of several) that I find odd. How does Mr. Blofeld have "cronies", and why would someone want to be one?

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Might just be puppet accounts.

Good answer. I hadn't thought of that. However, I do think he has a few people who are at least intellectually aligned with him and thus give him a pass on some of his bad behavior, including the moderators, primarily because his bad behavior was directed at people whose religious views or political ideas or morals or values aren't the same as his. I mean, he actually attacked myself and Righty007 for our positive review of I AM AMERICA (AND SO CAN YOU), criticizing us for being too stupid to understand 'the true liberal genius' of Stephen Colbert and calling us "pathetic". Imagine what he might have done to us if we had been saying something negative about the book.

Capsule in Space wrote:

Another aspect of this situation (out of several) that I find odd. How does Mr. Blofeld have "cronies", and why would someone want to be one?

Simple. "You scratch my back, I scratch yours." :roll:

That's pretty much it. Quid pro quo. At one point it was almost like a protection racket. He'd be "offended" by your posts and then thumb them down. If you wanted the points back, you'd have to thumb up his posts. He kept going after me because I wouldn't do that shit, and his reputation was dropping to Antarctic levels.

I wonder why?

I don't get why they don't nullify the whole thing. I've seen other boards run under the same program or whatever that CBn uses and the others make it so the rep system does nothing. Having a rep system creates a horrible environment and also turns the boards into a game for some people.

Chief of SIS wrote:

I don't get why they don't nullify the whole thing. I've seen other boards run under the same program or whatever that CBn uses and the others make it so the rep system does nothing. Having a rep system creates a horrible environment and also turns the boards into a game for some people.

If Jim had left my messages intact you'd see I had questioned the need for the ratings system at all and, if we had to have them, asked for a way in which we could see who was voting against us. Books and movie reviews are ascribed to an author;why not reputation voting?

Do they accurately reflect the reputation of the person, or are they susceptible to the same people constantly giving a poster a negative rating? I'd post a picture of a kitten sleeping on the wings of an angel and find myself getting a -3. I'm like: really?

The sad part is that some people cared so much about the ratings system that they would either try and not saying that would offend someone (thus rendering their postings stale, vanilla, and vague) or they'd make it their life goal to bump up their own ratings by any means necessary. At the end of the day, why was this ratings system so important to any one individual that they had to plead with some to help boost their own ratings while plead with others to "Knock.It.Off."

I mean, what were the reputation points worth? Could you sell them to Goldline for some extra cash? Did it entitle you to a free dinner at the International House of Pancakes with the purchase of one dinner at equal or greater value?

I swapped mine for a car.

Santa wrote:

I swapped mine for a car.

So the Cash For Clunkers program accepted "reputation points", eh?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'd post a picture of a kitten sleeping on the wings of an angel and find myself getting a -3. I'm like: really?

While I most likely would have loved that picture, I get that frustration. If I thought it was sensational, as I did that TIME cover you posted once as I recall, I at least wrote out my displeasure instead of using rep system to show disapproval. A negative point tells you nothing. It stunts conversation and growth of a topic.

Chief of SIS wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'd post a picture of a kitten sleeping on the wings of an angel and find myself getting a -3. I'm like: really?

While I most likely would have loved that picture, I get that frustration. If I thought it was sensational, as I did that TIME cover you posted once as I recall, I at least wrote out my displeasure instead of using rep system to show disapproval. A negative point tells you nothing. It stunts conversation and growth of a topic.

I had to rack my brain to think of what TIME cover you were referring to. Was it the one with the woman who had her nose cut off by her husband in Afghanistan?

I forgot the context of why I posted that, but as brutal as it was to look at that, it must have had some relevance to the topic or I wouldn't have posted it.

Chief of SIS wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'd post a picture of a kitten sleeping on the wings of an angel and find myself getting a -3. I'm like: really?

While I most likely would have loved that picture, I get that frustration. If I thought it was sensational, as I did that TIME cover you posted once as I recall, I at least wrote out my displeasure instead of using rep system to show disapproval. A negative point tells you nothing. It stunts conversation and growth of a topic.

Mr. Blofeld (and assumedly many, many others) uses the negative rep button whenever someone posts something that isn't in line with his own personal beliefs or opinions, be they about "Quantum of Solace" or politics. Such is the classic behavior of someone too stupid or lazy to be bothered to RESPOND with an intelligent, articulate rebuttal. The sad thing is that Mr. B CAN carry himself in a very articulate manner when he's not coming across like an angry, spiteful douchebag.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Chief of SIS wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'd post a picture of a kitten sleeping on the wings of an angel and find myself getting a -3. I'm like: really?

While I most likely would have loved that picture, I get that frustration. If I thought it was sensational, as I did that TIME cover you posted once as I recall, I at least wrote out my displeasure instead of using rep system to show disapproval. A negative point tells you nothing. It stunts conversation and growth of a topic.

I had to rack my brain to think of what TIME cover you were referring to. Was it the one with the woman who had her nose cut off by her husband in Afghanistan?

I forgot the context of why I posted that, but as brutal as it was to look at that, it must have had some relevance to the topic or I wouldn't have posted it.

I hate that your posts are gone. Couldn't find it. I believe though it was the Bond in Drag topic. I remember saying it weakened your argument because it was off-topic. Which at heart is kind of the issue here. One man's on-topic is another man's off-topic. Doesn't warrant negative rep.

Thought I would pop over here and say hi. Things have been awfully dull at CBn lately.

Gravity, at least your posts were intelligent and entertaining. Sorry to hear you were banned.

jaguar007 wrote:

Thought I would pop over here and say hi. Things have been awfully dull at CBn lately.

Gravity, at least your posts were intelligent and entertaining. Sorry to hear you were banned.

Hope you'll do more than pop in and just say "Hi", Jaguar. Thank you for your nice words of support, though. It's nice to be missed. However, I feel like Jim did me a favor. Like a jaguar, I needed to be in my natural habit, and Jim released me into the wild (Bond and Beyond) to be with my own kind.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

jaguar007 wrote:

Thought I would pop over here and say hi. Things have been awfully dull at CBn lately.

Gravity, at least your posts were intelligent and entertaining. Sorry to hear you were banned.

Hope you'll do more than pop in and just say "Hi", Jaguar. Thank you for your nice words of support, though. It's nice to be missed. However, I feel like Jim did me a favor. Like a jaguar, I needed to be in my natural habit, and Jim released me into the wild (Bond and Beyond) to be with my own kind.

I may pop in every now and then. I don't post on CBn much anymore either. My new job keeps me away from my computer most of the time.

It is nice to see you here Jaguar!

Jaguar and I have had some intense debates over at CBn, but I consider him a nice guy who is really passionate and knowledgeable about spy fiction. He's really into collecting stuff, and I was blown away by the picture of his James Bond room that he posted at CBn. Anyway, I am happy to see him here.

Capsule in Space wrote:

It is nice to see you here Jaguar!

Jaguar and I have had some intense debates over at CBn, but I consider him a nice guy who is really passionate and knowledgeable about spy fiction. He's really into collecting stuff, and I was blown away by the picture of his James Bond room that he posted at CBn. Anyway, I am happy to see him here.

Thanks for the kind words Capsule. Yes, we disagree on the Craig era, but agree on The Saint :D