A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43

Eric Stott wrote:

> 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.

Lucky you. I only brought it up to make sure Jessica knew that even
those who don't know her personally were offended by the remark.



Mar de Cortes Baja

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

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:

> y'all realize, of course, there have now been more than double the
> amount of posts concerning Miss Glamour's dubious contributions to
> this NG and Jessica's evil capitalist posts than have actually
> discussed this year's Cinecon.

I was once told by one of the Cinecon organizers, in public, on this
newsgroup, that I would not be welcome at the event. Reports from
inside the clubhouse can only come from those who are granted admission
to the inner sanctum.

The good news is that all reports from Cinecon are going to be more or
less the same, since it's primarily intended as an occasion for the
gathering of the clique. A few of these reports go a long way.



Mar de Cortes Baja

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

> I think Miss Glamour is a sock puppet.

I think "Miss Glamour" is George Shelps. Lest you forget, an ISP
check revealed Mr. Shelps to be the face behind "Dwight Frippery".

Jay Salsberg
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Sep 9, 4:21 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:

> I was once told by one of the Cinecon organizers, in public, on this
> newsgroup, that I would not be welcome at the event.

I don't follow this board as closely as I perhaps should, but I don't
remember any such post. Can you elucidate?

As to not being welcome: Only once in Cinecon history -- back in 1976
-- was anybody ever turned away, and even that person eventually got
in when a member in good standing pleaded with that year's chairman on
his behalf. Anybody who shows up and behaves him or herself is
welcome. Hell, Cinecon continues to welcome a few people who
routinely *don't* behave themselves.

> The good news is that all reports from Cinecon are going to be more or
> less the same, since it's primarily intended as an occasion for the
> gathering of the clique. A few of these reports go a long way.

I'm sorry, Lloyd, but you're being silly. A gathering of *which*
clique? At any Cinecon you'll find considerable diversity of tastes
and opinions. You can even find people who think Larry Semon is
funny.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Sep 9, 6:10 pm, "phantom...@aol.com" <phantom....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

> I think "Miss Glamour" is George Shelps. Lest you forget, an ISP
> check revealed Mr. Shelps to be the face behind "Dwight Frippery".

It *did*? My God, I miss out on everything! When did *this* happen?
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

"Lloyd Fonvielle" <navigareNOSPAM DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:UgYEi.134490$kK1.127305@newsfe14.phx...
> Eric Stott wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Lucky you. I only brought it up to make sure Jessica knew that even those
> who don't know her personally were offended by the remark.

I think Miss Glamour is a sock puppet.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Ed Hulse wrote:

> On Sep 9, 4:21 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I was once told by one of the Cinecon organizers, in public, on this
>>newsgroup, that I would not be welcome at the event.
>
> I don't follow this board as closely as I perhaps should, but I don't
> remember any such post. Can you elucidate?
>
> As to not being welcome: Only once in Cinecon history -- back in 1976
> -- was anybody ever turned away, and even that person eventually got
> in when a member in good standing pleaded with that year's chairman on
> his behalf. Anybody who shows up and behaves him or herself is
> welcome. Hell, Cinecon continues to welcome a few people who
> routinely *don't* behave themselves.

Well, I can't remember which organizer it was, and I didn't take the
comment to mean that I would literally be turned away. In fact, I think
the guy said that I would be welcome to buy tickets as long as I didn't
attend any screenings. It was just a mean-spirited gesture to encourage
me to stay away.

I sure all are welcome at Cinecon if they keep unconventional opinions
to themselves, but publicly disinviting those who just aren't "the right
sort" struck me as signalling the kind of clubhouse mentality that
marginalizes the silent film community. I think a lot of people who see
themselves as "leaders" of that community are perfectly happy to keep it
marginalized if it means they can go on thinking of themselves as "leaders".



Mar de Cortes Baja

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

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:08:20 -0400, G-HELPS.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps)
wrote:

>scoundrel wrote:
>
>>Then put her in a killfile, George and
>>stop trying to ruin a source of
>>appreciated information for the rest of us.
>
>I was reacting to Mike S's over the top
>defemse of Rosner. I brought up the
>spam matter as a side issue.
>
>But put me in your killfile, because you
>can't silence me.
>
No one is here to silence you George, I've had your back on some
previous discussions here before. I just don't wan't your personal
vendetta to silence a good source of information.



>>Besides,as an unabashed capitalist, why
>>do you care...?
>
>I favor capitalism,yes, but there's a place
>for money-making and this is not the
>place.


If this was a moderated forum it would probably have been addressed.
Personally I think KINOs website is a little slow in updates to new
releases, so I welcome Jessica's input.

I don't happen to agree with everything I read on the web and this NG,
but I welcome the unfiltered access to it.


S.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:38:54 -0700, Ed Hulse <bnteditor RemoveThis @optonline.net>
wrote:

>On Sep 9, 6:10 pm, "phantom...@aol.com" <phantom... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I think "Miss Glamour" is George Shelps. Lest you forget, an ISP
>> check revealed Mr. Shelps to be the face behind "Dwight Frippery".
>
>It *did*? My God, I miss out on everything! When did *this* happen?


I feel the same way....

When did this happen...?
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

<phantomxci.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189375808.798326.301380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I think Miss Glamour is a sock puppet.
>
> I think "Miss Glamour" is George Shelps. Lest you forget, an ISP
> check revealed Mr. Shelps to be the face behind "Dwight Frippery".
>
> Jay Salsberg

Which Dwight Frippery?

The first one was irritating, but I had a grudging respect for his
knowledge- THAT Fripp was usually accurate, except when talking about
Kubrick.
The so-called "Real" Frippery was a boorish dolt who used crude insults.

Eric Stott
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Sep 9, 5:50 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
> Ed Hulse wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 4:21 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>I was once told by one of the Cinecon organizers, in public, on this
> >>newsgroup, that I would not be welcome at the event.
>
> > I don't follow this board as closely as I perhaps should, but I don't
> > remember any such post. Can you elucidate?
>
> > As to not being welcome: Only once in Cinecon history -- back in 1976
> > -- was anybody ever turned away, and even that person eventually got
> > in when a member in good standing pleaded with that year's chairman on
> > his behalf. Anybody who shows up and behaves him or herself is
> > welcome. Hell, Cinecon continues to welcome a few people who
> > routinely *don't* behave themselves.
>
> Well, I can't remember which organizer it was, and I didn't take the
> comment to mean that I would literally be turned away. In fact, I think
> the guy said that I would be welcome to buy tickets as long as I didn't
> attend any screenings. It was just a mean-spirited gesture to encourage
> me to stay away.
>
> I sure all are welcome at Cinecon if they keep unconventional opinions
> to themselves, but publicly disinviting those who just aren't "the right
> sort" struck me as signalling the kind of clubhouse mentality that
> marginalizes the silent film community. I think a lot of people who see
> themselves as "leaders" of that community are perfectly happy to keep it
> marginalized if it means they can go on thinking of themselves as "leaders".
>
> Mar de Cortes Baja
>
> www.mardecortesbaja.com<http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>

Lloyd, as one of the chumps who runs Cinecon, I can tell you with 100%
certainty that whoever told you that did so on his own without any
permission from the rest of us. You are most certainly welcome at any
and all Cinecons, and if this clown ever says anything like this
again, tell me and I'll personally deal with it.

And as for Mr. Shelps' description of my defense of Jessica as "over
the top"--yes, maybe it was a bit. But what (s)he said about Jessica
was indefensible and warranted a response in kind. That's what real
people do when friends are viciously attacked without provocation.

Mike S.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

precode wrote:

> . . . what (s)he said about Jessica
> was indefensible and warranted a response in kind. That's what real
> people do when friends are viciously attacked without provocation.

My point is that the attack deserved to be deplored even by people who
aren't friends with Ms. Rossner and who don't appreciate her signal
services to silent film. It was just out of bounds. This would be a
better forum if ALL gratuitous personal attacks were roundly deplored by
everybody.



Mar de Cortes Baja

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

>
> > I think "Miss Glamour" is
When HER (??) posts referred to fashion they were SPAM and deserved
no place in this forum.Her cookery recipes were also SPAM .HER gossip
comments are pure malice and should be deleted. or completely ignored.
This person is a stupid nuisance
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43