You might as well say the following about all of the output from your favorite genre:

Generic Rom-com 10,001,838,489,393,820,838

So yeah...

At least Saw has twists and pushes the envelope

Hey Joe: SHUT UP ALREADY with your baity BS. You've been instructed not to speak to me with your nitpicky/whiny/rude crap or there'll be consequences. And it's not like trying to do that through a double account is going to help your case either, by the way.

I'm not saying anything about the Saw movies one way or the other. I've only seen two of them (the first two) and I liked them. I was merely commenting on the fact that this is the millionth edition of them, but you don't understand things like this and never have. I still don't understand why you come crawling back here each time when we're supposedly such awful people. Get a grip.

She's allowed to poke fun, Joe. I'm a fan of the series and I still think it's ridiculous.

I too think it's ridiculous. Even customers who come into the store and actually like the series can't remember which one they're on now.

Hey Libs, who's the baiter? You obviously posted this in hopes of getting a response. You can't expect not to. And what consequences? You going to find and kill me? I don't doubt it. Because banning isn't going to do anything. Plus, Lecter said he isn't going to be quick to do it, especially when you post something like that that is even more hateful than normal, even for you. Even though I've explained the situation more than once, you still don't get it.

Obviously, they don't like them that much or else they would know the answer.

Whoa, why doesn't everyone take a chill pill. Libs really wasn't saying anything offensive about the SAW series, she was merely making fun of the fact that they are miliking it for every dollar. But even if she had said something negative about the series, she is completely entitled to do so, it is her opinion. What is the point of having a "forum" if one can't express their own opinions.

I will state my opinion on the SAW series, and that is that I don't like them. I have seen a couple of the movies and I find them to be nothing but over glorified gore with little substance. There is a reason why year after year many a professional reviewer refers to the films as "horror porn". It is exactly that, all show and little substance. I'll take an intellectual movie any day of the week over such drivel. And that is just my opinion. If you don't like it, you don't have to come to this forum anymore.

By the same token, I'm allowed to take shots at the fact that every rom-com is basically the same movie as the last one. Obviously, Libs likes to dish it out but can't take it. Plus, Saw is even more entertaining when imagining that Libs is one of those caught in a trap

You are so beyond fucked up that it's not even funny. Saying something creepy as hell like that and then adding a "wink" afterward doesn't make it better. I don't give a flying fuck if I get warned for talking to you like this.

This is not the week to mess with me.

Split the topic to the Site, will get back to it in an hour (gotta eat now, but I'd prefer for both sides to stay quiet until I come on here and say my thoughts (well at least the reasonable of the two sides can refrain) thanks.

I like the idea of Libs finding Joe and killing him.

Would make a great movie... Saw 975,545,495,395

+1

See, had Joe just said something about generic romcom (whatever number), I wouldn't see a problem wth that. But thing is that I am absolutely positive that Libs' comment was not directed at anyone here (hey, there're more Saw fans here than just you, Joe). However, it is quite obvious that Joe's comment was a direct retort to Libs which was not necessary. She didn't say Saw "975,545,495,394 of Joe's favorite series", so I really really don't see any baiting whatsoever there. Joe, however, did take it personally for no reason.

That aside, I told Joe that IF he has a problem with someone here to PM me and not start a counter-attack. And only thing I said I wouldn't be quick about is banning you. I did mention, however, that I prefer other methods of ounishment and I don't refrain from using them if I see the necessityas some might have observed over the last few weeks. So let me make this clear here in the open once and for all:

Joe, you obviously have a problem with Libs. You don't like her. That's fine, we can't all like each other. That doesn't excuse unprovoked outbursts, sure you might have not said anything particularly offensive in your first retort (up until you said you imagined her in a Saw trap...WTF?), but it clearly was baity to insigate some sort of an argument and that's the last thing these boards need. It comes down to the fact that Libs said something about Saw, completely unrelated to you, but you took it personal and starting biting back for no good reason. And before you say it's just her, I want to remind you of a comment you posted towards me recently without good reason:



And I hardly baited you either, did I? However, I don't get easily offended by that stuff. I know like getting a rise out of people. Some might play along, others don't and those are to be respected, especially after repeated warnings to lay off.


So I'll make this simple:

From now on, no references to Libs. No quoting her, mentioning her, talking to her, alluding to her or trying to make contact in any other imaginable way. Whether or not you break that rule is up to my discretion. A single little misstep and there will be consequences that I mentioned to you in my recent PM. There'll be no further warnings, PM's, nothing. Arguing this decision won't bring you further either. This is going nowhere otherwise. Either adhere to it, remain here and be a poster contributing valuable material to the boards or accept the consequences of your potential misconduct.

That's all I have to say on this matter.

Thank you.

Just a quick question (for possible future problems with other posters as well):

What if the one who doesn't want the other to talk to them, mention them, quote them, etc. does so to them? Can the one who is told not to talk, mention, quote, etc. not repond to them if directly quoted or mentioned?

Like the below example, which happens to be the two involved in the current case.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=54141&p=1523408#p1523408

Of course I'd prefer this to be bi-directional. Libs made the comment before my post as you can see.

But God help me if I actually have to use this measure in multiple cases

I see you in a Saw trap all the time, Lecter. (But only because your face to me is Michael Emerson.)

Hmm, I should have picked Brad Pitt for my avatar.

Then I'd see you as a crotchety old man and that doesn't really work. Really, if you're picking avatars based on me, choose Mary Elizabeth Winstead. My life will be more pleasant that way.

Hmm, not sure I want you to imagine licking/eating chocolate syrup off me or whatever...

Mmm, chocolate...

Why do most guys always go straight to "PMS?!" when a woman is in a bad mood?

I don't understand it...