A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43

Bruce Calvert wrote:

>George, if information about silent-fil
>DVD releases and silent-film screenings
>bothers you, then maybe you are reading
>the wrong newsgroup.

Don't be rridiculous! I don't question
the info, just the fact that Rosner is
peddling.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

You don't MAKE any real money on silent film DVD releases==you just
try to avoid losing your shirt.

If there were any profits here, the studios would be releasing daily
those titles from 1923-28 which they still retain copyright over.
Guess what--they are not doing this for perfectly sensible economic
reasons.

If the Kinos, Milestones, David Shepherds,,NFPFs and others of the
world can't at least break even, guess what will happen. There won't
be silent film DVD releases and the only way to see these filmswill be
to go to DC, NY or LA and watch an occasional film screening. Your
only hope then will be that copyright won't again be extended in 2018,
when the 1923 films theoretically enter the public domain. Guess
what: the track record does not bode well on that front.

Everyone on this listserv is promoting something, be it an idea, theme
or personal cockiness :-) . This site works best when folks learn
what is out there, what is coming out and then have the gaps of their
silent film knowledge filled in by experts who know the rich,
unmatched, beautiful history of silent film. Snippy personal attacks
(from any side) reflect poorly, chiefly on those making these petty
missives. This goes for everyone. This place was an oasis in 2005--
it is now an oasis imperiled by the occasional rank-smelling cesspool
engendered by those who can't abide not being seen as perfect and
having the last word.

Sorry for the rant
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:

>News about upcoming silent film
>releases is regularly solicited from
>company spokespeople here, and
>generally welcomed, so their posts can't
>be considered spam.

I disagree. If the individual has
an economic interest in the news.
it is spam.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

George Shelps wrote:

> Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
>
>>News about upcoming silent film
>>releases is regularly solicited from
>>company spokespeople here, and
>>generally welcomed, so their posts can't
>>be considered spam.
>
> I disagree. If the individual has
> an economic interest in the news.
> it is spam.

Well, that isn't the commonly used meaning of "spam", which is not
simply e-mail advertising or promotion but e-mail advertising or
promotion which is unsolicited, unwanted and disruptive.

If I ask a company to send me e-mail updates on its products, those
e-mails aren't spam, as the word is generally understood, even though
the company undoubtedly has an economic interest in sending me the updates.




Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

I rate this site as excellent with interesting posts everyday. Best to
ignore any silly or malice posts
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:

<but e-mail advertising or promotion
>which is unsolicited, unwanted and
>disruptive.

Not everyone solicits bulletins from DVD
distributors.

Many of us may welcome them here,
but I don't like to see the group used
for promotional purposes.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

"George Shelps" <G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25235-46E3159F-153@storefull-3316.bay.webtv.net...
> Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
>
>>News about upcoming silent film
>>releases is regularly solicited from
>>company spokespeople here, and
>>generally welcomed, so their posts can't
>>be considered spam.
>
> I disagree. If the individual has
> an economic interest in the news.
> it is spam.
>

Even Rodney Sauer's announcement of his silent film calender?

Even Art Pierce announcing Capitolfest?

I've seen many announcements of a commercial nature on this board with not a
word from you.

Face it- you're using this argument to cloak a personal snit with Jessica.

Get over it.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Eric Stott wrote:

> Face it- you're using this argument to cloak a personal snit with Jessica.

George and Jessica have exchanged personal snipes before, but I think
what's being lost here is that Miss Glamor's post about Ms. Rossner went
way beyond sniping and that it wasn't offensive just because Ms. Rossner
contributes a lot to the silent film community -- it would have been
offensive even if directed at someone who hates silent films. George
may have enjoyed it privately, for his own personal reasons, but I hope
he would admit that it went far beyond the pale of civil public discourse.




Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

craig wrote:

> This place was an oasis in 2005 . . .

Not if you offered an opinion that diverged from the commonly accepted
wisdom about silent films, which almost always prompted personal attacks
-- attacks which proponents of the common wisdom seemed to think were
perfectly appropriate.



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE (Eric Stott) wrote:


>>I disagree. If the individual has
>>an economic interest in the news.
>>it is spam.

>Even Rodney Sauer's announcement of
>his silent film calender?

>Even Art Pierce announcing Capitolfest?

>I've seen many announcements of a
>commercial nature on this board with not
>a word from you.

>Face it- you're using this argument to
>cloak a personal snit with Jessica.

Yes, I did enjoy Miss Glamour's sideswipe
at Rosner---since she once gratuitously
took a pot shot at me.

But I've always been annoyed at her
Kino-blurbing and neither Sauer not
Pierce benefits commercially from their
announcements as she does.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:

>George may have enjoyed it privately,
>for his own personal reasons, but I hope
>he would admit that it went far beyond
>the pale of civil public discourse.

Far worse things have been said
about me here. I was once called
a draft dodger, for example, by Tom
Moran, and other than Ed Hulse, there
was nary a peep from the assembled
righteous throng here.

If such slanders are the benchmark
of group acceptability, well, hell,
I'm going to enjoy the comparatively
minor swipe at Rosner.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Here I must admit that I've had Miss Glamor in my ignore file (for quite
some time) and her/his remark passed me by completely.
Stott



"Lloyd Fonvielle" <navigareNOSPAM DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:DsJEi.134418$kK1.92897@newsfe14.phx...
> Eric Stott wrote:
>
>> Face it- you're using this argument to cloak a personal snit with
>> Jessica.
>
> George and Jessica have exchanged personal snipes before, but I think
> what's being lost here is that Miss Glamor's post about Ms. Rossner went
> way beyond sniping and that it wasn't offensive just because Ms. Rossner
> contributes a lot to the silent film community -- it would have been
> offensive even if directed at someone who hates silent films. George may
> have enjoyed it privately, for his own personal reasons, but I hope he
> would admit that it went far beyond the pale of civil public discourse.
>
>
>
>
> Mar de Cortes Baja
>
> www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 23:28:24 -0400, G-HELPS RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>
>estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE (Eric Stott) wrote:
>
>
>>>I disagree. If the individual has
>>>an economic interest in the news.
>>>it is spam.
>
>>Even Rodney Sauer's announcement of
>>his silent film calender?
>
>>Even Art Pierce announcing Capitolfest?
>
>>I've seen many announcements of a
>>commercial nature on this board with not
>>a word from you.
>
>>Face it- you're using this argument to
>>cloak a personal snit with Jessica.
>
>Yes, I did enjoy Miss Glamour's sideswipe
>at Rosner---since she once gratuitously
>took a pot shot at me.
>
>But I've always been annoyed at her
>Kino-blurbing and neither Sauer not
>Pierce benefits commercially from their
>announcements as she does.

Then put her in a killfile, George and stop trying to
ruin a source of appreciated information for the rest os us.

Besides,as an unabashed capitalist, why do you care...?
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43