Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Holden, why are you spamming me with negative feedback?

If I am unwelcome on these forums just say so directly.

[EDIT] - Thank you for ceasing the negative feedback macro. You issued me so many bad reps per minute I could not even stay logged in. How you issued me reps for threads in which I never posted I don't know, all I do know is, that is called spamming, and I appreciate that you stopped.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I can't believe this. I don't know what his problem is with you either, but you are most certainly welcome here, mate. Don't let people like Pikey boy get you down.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

No worries. He's actually doing it again right now. Whatever floats his boat. But honestly he wonders why I said he was acting like a douche. I don't know why he harasses people.

For some reason I got the impression this forum existed to discuss movies and share a common enthusiasm, not to badger and belittle people.

Why Holden feels justified in dishing out criticism, but unwilling to receive any, I do not know. Whatever though, I've other things to worry about. If it means that much to you Holden, you can have movieforums all to yourself.

Take care.;)

[EDIT] Ok , I guess the spam macro triggers every time I receive a positive rep, maybe, maybe not though. Just a heads up for anyone else targeted. Guy even spammed my blog as well. Sad and pathetic. Too bad; I always enjoyed reading his harvested posts. Enjoy yourself Holden.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

What the hell is spam macro? And what are you on about?

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Hmm that's weird I check the post ratings damn near every day I haven't seen any negative rep for you....

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

If you are referring to negative rep, you said what you said at a little after 8 pm last night. The only negative rep handed out yesterday, was sweeney. I got home after 11 pm last night, and he was the only one on the list. I know for sure, because I looked to see how sweeney's rep spree went. He had himself a moment!

You can not be repped in threads that you were never in. You have to post in them first.

After reading this, I have to assume that the "macro" you are talking about, is the notification at the top of the board that says you have rep. If so, that is for all rep, plus and minus, from all members. Just click on it, and you will see who gave it to you, and whether or not it is plus or minus.

p.s. I always considered SPAM to be when someone was advertising their own things. Be it sites, boards, downloads, etc . . . Not simple messages sent. However, from the way you have worded this, I am assuming you mean comments, and/or PMs.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

It is strange indeed. I have at all times -229 reps all issued from Holden Pike and all the ones I can see were issued from threads where I never posted. I do not think he ever meant for me to see them because whatever the heck is going on it keeps me from logging in at the main page. Once the macro, or whatever it is, stops continually issuing me negative rep, my rep reverts to normal. Someone in the 24 hours gave me a positive rep, but if I click on my profile to see who awarded me and for what, all I see is endless negative rep from Holden, but my overall rep tracker remains unchanged.

Listen, this is going to be my last post on these forums. I made this matter public as a fair warning to everyone. It is very clear to me the poor chap has issues and I would just rather stay the hell away from him, especially since he lives in my hometown. Take your pills Holden, and stay away.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Sounds like some kind of glitch. You only have 116 posts, Holden can only rep each post once. You should take this up with Yoda. Or don't, its up to you. Somehow though I seriously doubt he went out of his way to neg rep each and every one of your posts.

EDIT: OK, I just looked at the post rating glossary and you're not even on the list so either its some kind of system glitch or you're making this up.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yep cause we all know Holden has nothing better to do then give you negative rep.....

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

PW's right: you only get one rep per post, no matter what, so it's technically impossible for Holden to have given you -229 rep. He's given you exactly ONE negative rep. You only have TWO negative reps all told, leaving you at +42.

Sounds like you're simply confused about something, particularly in regards to your comments about not being able to log in -- the rep system does not effect basic forum abilities in any way, shape, or form. I suppose you may be trying to access the Reputation Tracker without logging in, which obviously would not display your rep, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do, exactly.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

After all the bellyaching I bothered to look it up and as far as I can remember I have negative repped him exactly twice: once in this thread and once in the New York City thread (and I used restraint and waited until the second unprovoked "douchebag" before I even reacted at all). But if he wants to imagine 227 more, that's up to him. You go, girl.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

It can only show you the last ten reps, and who gave them to you. I have signed in to over ten reps, before, and there was no way for me to know who gave me the extra reps, or to what posts they went to. We can only see the most recent ten.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

It's clear you are a tight knit group here, and there is little I can do to convince you my problem is real. I even have negative reps from 2006 and 2007 before I even became a member. Sorry Yoda, it's real and I am not the slightest bit confused about the reps or the log-in problems. Maybe it's a glitch, but I find that a bit too coincidental.

No matter, take care, goodbye and thanks for all the fish.:)

Nice site by the way, certainly one of the better movie forums on the net.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

The fact that we're "tight knit" doesn't have anything to do with anything. Please listen to what I'm saying to you: I logged directly into the database backend, searched on your userid, and you have only two negative rep points. Whatever other bug or glitch there might be, this is a fact.

As for whether or not you're confused: I'm not trying to put you down, but you must be, if you're insinuating that the rep issue has anything to do with your ability to log in. It doesn't. Believe me, I wrote the system myself, which is why I'd like to know if something's wrong with it.

I also didn't say you didn't have a problem, or that it wasn't "real." I'm simply telling you what HASN'T happened. I can't tell what has unless you explain it a bit better, at which point I'll be glad to investigate. As far as I can tell, you haven't really reported this to anyone or even asked about it: you just started hurling accusations around.

I don't know where the word "coincidental" springs from, either. Notice that you have a green dot under your username. This doesn't appear unless you have neutral or positive rep, and is the only way other members can see your rep. What's supposed to be coincidental about a glitch that only you can see, exactly?

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

If you would load the page that you see all of this on, and then take a screen-shot of it, that would help. You could simply PM it to Yoda. It's just a thought.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

After misusing the word SPAM mayhaps you should look up the word troll? Oh, and have a mirror handy, too.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I had only watched their show occasionally, but I love Ebert's reviews and agree with most of them. Has he gotten less cynical? Well, I think I might be more warm and fuzzy after battling illnesses so long, feeling lucky to still be alive and able to work. It's cool with me. I still love what he does.

I haven't seen the new boys, but Ben M, from TCM, seems a little milquetoast to me.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Never worry about what's popular--just be true to yourself. Me, I love reading reviews of movies, theater, books, what have you because you can learn a lot from experts in those fields--facts I didn't know about that production, items I might otherwise have overlooked. Plus I just enjoy a well-written news report of any kind.

And I have to admit, too, that I just love it when a critic really slams a film because they always put more imagination and emotion into a bad review than into a good one. Such reviews usually are both witty and funny!

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Critic Ben Lyons gets many thumbs down

Here is the L.A.Times article.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,3485043.story

Now can we bring Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips back.


In case this comes up with another poster Holden Pike is not giving -229 rep.

If you don't have your browser set up correctly while checking Reputation Tracker, you will get this display http://www.movieforums.com/community/rep.php.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I'll see about fiddling with it to stop this from happening again.

Then again, if something like this is going to set someone off, and they refuse to explain anything about it or listen to reason, and instead assume that everyone is engaged in a completely pointless, convoluted conspiracy against them, then they're not likely to be the kind of person we'll necessarily miss. But still. :)