Cue Trevor complaining that we're wasting our time, and not focussing on producing more films and audios for him to rubbish...
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
mkopelke |
BTR Goes WAP! (again) |
Lead | |
|
Just thought I'd post a little note to let people know that after 18 months of inactivity, our little presence on the global WAP network has resurfaced, and is once again going to be updated regularly. Hosted on a new server, and with loads of new content, it should be your one-stop shop to discover the latest happenings at BTR if you're not near your PC!
Cue Trevor complaining that we're wasting our time, and not focussing on producing more films and audios for him to rubbish... |
|||
witold tietze |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
that emoticon's not being used to disguise an insult as opposed to accurately expressing the emotional tone of your last sentence, is it?
nothing is certain. maybe.
|
|||
mkopelke |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
Oh, deary me no - I would never insult our friend Mr Gensch, whom I feel is a valuable contributor to the community we have here. Hence my emoticon to display that fact.
When I use smiley faces I use them as they intended - to accurately display the emotional tone of the preceeding paragraph / sentence (hence the term "emoticon"). So, yes, you are right mate - good work! |
|||
witold tietze |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
well, so do i, but not everyone always sees it that way, so i thought it best to clear up any potential ambiguity that may arise from the use of emoticons.
nothing is certain. maybe.
|
|||
mkopelke |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
Too true. Couldn't have put it better myself.
On a separate note, am actually saddened that we've not had Trev pop around the forum at all this weekend, as there are currently several threads I would really like him to contribute to, not to mention finally reading his long-awaited review of Dominion of the Daleks. |
|||
witold tietze |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
i thought he'd already written that review. or is my memory being skewed by his preparatory second review of dominion of the tardis?
nothing is certain. maybe.
|
|||
trevorgensch |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
I've got no problem with you having a go at me, but to have a go at me with incorrect information is what I don't like.
I review your audio dramas, I point out what I enjoyed, I point out what is bad/could be improved. That the latter is always longer is a reflection on my explaining my point of view rather than a case of the scales being tipped that way. As I have said recently, if you want me to balance out the reviews with more of "that was really well done, superb work, never heard better, my goodness that was good, how do you keep doing it, fantastic stuff, even better than the previous one by far, my word yes, golly gee, that was whizz bang on the mark" then I am more than happy. Negative comments will always take more space in my reviews merely because I feel that explaining why I said them in the first place is more valuable than paragraphs of the above. If you are doing stuff well then take the ommission of a comment about them in my reviews as an affirmation that you are. Trev. |
|||
mkopelke |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
Trev,
Quote: Eh? At what stage did anyone in this thread have a go at you, or berate you for the style of review you post on our forum? From what I've just re-read (to ensure I was accurately making the aforementioned statement) I was actually extremely complimentary to your presence here, and was stating that I was saddened you'd not been posting much in the last few days, because of several threads I am hoping you will contribute to, because I would value your input on them greatly. |
|||
trevorgensch |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
The one about "cue".
I just get tired of the remarks that seem to be then excused by saying you had a smilie at the end. Trev. |
|||
mkopelke |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
I see, Trevor - so what you're saying is that we cannot make light-hearted comments about people on this forum (when said comments have no basis for attempting to infer anything about the other person) for fear of upsetting them? What about all the comments on this forum in which you have done exactly the same thing? Was your behaviour on those occasions an exemption or something?
Sorry, but I can't work out why there must be one rule for us, and one rule for you - unless it's a case of "can dish it out, but can't take it" (sorry for using a playground saying, but I've been teaching all day, and have heard the aforementioned statement several times between students, and it's easily the most succient way of putting forward what I want to say). Oh, and did you not notice that the "Cue Trevor" bit is actually a hyperlink to a similar thread from 18 months ago in which you quite clearly said our idea of having a WAP site was a crap idea (the thread was entitled "What's all this WAP crap?"), and that we should focus more on producing films or what have you? In many ways, my joke was more a statement of fact, as there existed a clear precedent for you taking such a line. So, in all honesty, I cannot see how I was having a go at you with "incorrect information", especially as I clearly acknowledged my source for making such a joke. |
|||
witold tietze |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
i'm going to add one brief note to this discussion, since mention has been made of what could succinctly be described as "the smiley thing", which i alluded to in a couple of my posts. i thank matt for having addressed the issue regarding the "cue" thing, incidentally.
to refer specifically to trevor's comment: Quote: although i fear a word or two has been accidentally omitted from the above, i think i get the general gist of what trevor is trying to say on the basis of the occasions on which he's said it in the past. so, unless i'm mistaken and this is something entirely new, here goes my clear-cut explanation for what i hope will need to be the only time. speaking for myself and matthew, as i've spoken to him about this as part of this thread, neither of us ever uses emoticons to disguise the meaning of anything. if we include a smiley, it is for the purpose of its existence: to note clearly that a light-hearted, positive tone is intended, and that no negative meaning should be inferred as none exists. speaking for myself, if i ever wished to insult anyone on this forum -- which i certainly would not -- i would do so in a direct manner which left no ambiguity. (to do otherwise would, i feel, defeat the purpose of making an insult in the first place.) so i can assure everyone reading this that if either matthew or myself uses a smiley, it is to strengthen the connotations which ordinarily accompany such an emoticon, and for no other purpose. hopefully everybody can now rest assured that no ulterior motives will ever emerge from our part in any of these discussions, and especially that none should be inferred. if we are ever cheeky in tone, this is often in a self-depricating manner (e.g. my reference to theme music in the blakes legacy forum), and we are not the types to badmouth any member of our audience on this forum. as always, we apologise unreservedly if it ever appears otherwise, but such could not be further from our intentions, and we do endeavour at all opportunities to vet our own words in the hope of removing any unwanted and unintended allusions we may happen to spot. okay, i can't speak for matt on this one, but i know i certainly do. point being, as always, we do not abide by insensitivity (which is half of what we go on about sometimes), and none is ever intended. however, to cite an example where potential ambiguity does exist, i refer interested readers to my first smiley use in this thread. although it could be construed as a cheeky jab at trevor, the purpose of the smiley was to diffuse any antagonism by highlighting that the remark is not made in all seriousness, but is a joke made out of prior negative context. of course, if trevor's sense of humour does not extend to the use of a serious remark of his out of all serious context (as is the root of much comedy in the world), then i will certainly attempt to refrain from doing so in future. please note that none of the above has been intended as any sort of accusation or attack, and is meant purely as a formal explanation in the hope that future misunderstanding might be avoided. nothing is certain. maybe.
|
|||
mkopelke |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
witold tietze |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||
|
i hope you got in there before my last edit!
hmm... ought to justify this post a bit more... well, i suppose the fact that i've edited my previous post about three times supports one of the points i made. erm, am i off the hook now? nothing is certain. maybe.
|
|||
mkopelke |
Re: BTR Goes WAP! (again) | ||