Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Interact with your favorite SCM authors, producers, directors, historians, archivists and silent comedy savants. Or just read along. Whatever.
Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon May 13, 2013 6:11 pm

Gary Johnson wrote:I'm still mulling over the "canary in the coal mine" connotation. When the birds were found passed out down in the pits the workers knew the air was getting dangerously thin.
So how are you feeling lately, Richard? - a slight wooziness.....a little light-headed??
(I mean more than usual....)

Keep me updated. I'm slowly edging toward the adit just in case.



Over here, I feel great. The air is sweet and spicy.

You need to bone up on your metaphors. I'm not explaining jokes.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Bob Birchard

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Bob Birchard » Wed May 15, 2013 1:28 pm

Are there really any ideas on any of these groups that "NEED [emphasis mine] to be out there?"

The notion that there is an inevitable trajectory to a news group, i.e.

1) group of well-informed [read exclusive] like-minded enthusiasts forms a news group, and . . .

2) attracts attention due to the lofty content of the posts, which in turn . . . .

3) leads to lesser lights joining in on the conversation, causing . . .

4) the old guard to get exasperated and go batshit crazy, leading to . . .

5) disaffection, indifference, acting out, withdrawal (or banishment), only . . .

6) to have the whole cycle start over again, and . . .

7) again, and again, and again . . .

Is frankly a crock (although it certainly has happened this way before).

The whole purpose of a news group is to encourage the free exchange of ideas. It is a given that not everyone will be at the same level of expertise. Some newbie questions will be asked, some ignorant pontification will occur, some misinterpretation of intent (even with emoticons brandished) will lead to ill feeling--that's life (life on a news group, that is).

So, my two cents, for what little it is worth:

There is (and has never been) anything said on any of these movie groups that rises to the level of stuff that "needs to be out there." It is merely a discussion among those of common interests.

It is not a contest. Even those who know a lot don't know everything, and those who only know a little may actually know the one piece that may make the puzzle come together.

As one who has flown off the handle myself from time to time, I'd have to say "victories" have been pyrrhic at best, and I try to remember (though I don't always succeed) that one can tell the truth and still be civil.

One very good author (not affiliated with this group) got involved on some of the Facebook silent groups (vapid as they may be) and rapidly managed to make himself persona non grata for his political, and other comments, and managed to be banished from those groups for his beligerency. The result?: The groups still go on, deprived of this fellow's real expertise but seemingly none the worse for wear. The fellow has fewer outlets for sharing his very real knowledge with others. And, I'm sure this guy's potential book sales (on a really excellent study of a silent director's pre-movie years) have suffered because those who might have bought the book have been turned off by his hauteur.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Wed May 15, 2013 4:25 pm

Bob Birchard wrote:

“Are there really any ideas on any of these groups that "NEED [emphasis mine] to be out there?"



Certainly, all opinions “need” to be out there, good ones and bad, just as the opinion to counter the bad opinions also need to be out there. There is so much done wrong in the presentation and preservation of early film that needs to be pointed out, just as there is so much done well that gets criticized unfairly and needs to be defended.

That said, yeah, 97 percent of all of it is just gabbing and wanking. It’s just time-killing entertainment for the like-minded.

Birchard again

“The notion that there is an inevitable trajectory to a news group, i.e.

1) group of well-informed [read exclusive] like-minded enthusiasts forms a news group, and . . .

2) attracts attention due to the lofty content of the posts, which in turn . . . .

3) leads to lesser lights joining in on the conversation, causing . . .

4) the old guard to get exasperated and go batshit crazy, leading to . . .

5) disaffection, indifference, acting out, withdrawal (or banishment), only . . .

6) to have the whole cycle start over again, and . . .

7) again, and again, and again . . .

Is frankly a crock (although it certainly has happened this way before).”





Such a crock that even you admit it happens again again, again, and again.

I just came across two toy train groups at the Arizona County Fair recently. They were in two buildings on opposite ends of the Fairgrounds. One group had split off from the other group years ago because the people with the new group fought with the people who stayed in the old group. Both groups hated the other group and had issues with how the other group put together their toy train tracks, and both did it differerntly. Apparently there were also other groups that had split off from these two Groups.

We just enjoyed having two different sets of toy train displays to see.

Seems to happen quite a bit in life actually, ironically, one of the reasons we have four different Cinephile Conventions is that each one was pretty much started because certain Cinephiles didn’t like the way the other Cinephiles were running a certain show and decided to do one themselves. Heck, we started Slapsticon because we didn’t like the fact that none of the other Cinephile shows ran enough comedy, and then some folk didn’t like how things were done at Slapsticon and went out and started another Comedy film Fest.

Since religion is out of bounds here, I won’t go into Martin Luther and that whole Protestant thing, and gee, how many groups have splintered off from that?


Back to Birchard:

“The whole purpose of a news group is to encourage the free exchange of ideas. It is a given that not everyone will be at the same level of expertise. Some newbie questions will be asked, some ignorant pontification will occur, some misinterpretation of intent (even with emoticons brandished) will lead to ill feeling--that's life (life on a news group, that is).

So, my two cents, for what little it is worth:

There is (and has never been) anything said on any of these movie groups that rises to the level of stuff that "needs to be out there." It is merely a discussion among those of common interests.

It is not a contest. Even those who know a lot don't know everything, and those who only know a little may actually know the one piece that may make the puzzle come together.

As one who has flown off the handle myself from time to time, I'd have to say "victories" have been pyrrhic at best, and I try to remember (though I don't always succeed) that one can tell the truth and still be civil.

One very good author (not affiliated with this group) got involved on some of the Facebook silent groups (vapid as they may be) and rapidly managed to make himself persona non grata for his political, and other comments, and managed to be banished from those groups for his belligerency. The result?: The groups still go on, deprived of this fellow's real expertise but seemingly none the worse for wear. The fellow has fewer outlets for sharing his very real knowledge with others. And, I'm sure this guy's potential book sales (on a really excellent study of a silent director's pre-movie years) have suffered because those who might have bought the book have been turned off by his hauteur.”





I don’t really disagree with much that you say there Bob, except that I still will refuse to believe that anything I said on Nitrateville was really that particularly uncivil, certainly not uncivil enough to be banned from it, and frankly, being uncivil is no crime. Heck, you and I probably said some of the most uncivil things said on the group to each other and neither of us wanted the other banned for saying what we said.

I have always believed in the old Winston Churchill quote (which I’m paraphrasing, cause I don’t have the actual quote in front of me) where he told someone : “ You have enemies, good. It means that sometime in your life you stood up for something you believed in.” I also go with the old Popeye quote, “ I yam what I Yam”, and since the ones who get upset by what I do still seem to be the right ones and the ones who defend me still seem to be the right ones, I’m not in any particular mood to change.

And hell, I don’t think it affects book sales one way or another. I don’t want to have a conversation with William Drew or read his too-densely-packed ramblings on the Internet either, but I bought his Griffith book, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I don’t like you Birchard and I buy your books, I get the information without having to deal with the man. Anyone who won’t buy my book because they don’t like me is doing nothing but robbing themselves of a lot of neat info about Hal Roach and they get what they deserve, it affects me none, I’d be a fool if I was doing this for the money.

And getting tossed from a newsgroup or two does indeed not really mean a hill of beans on the big old internet. New groups spring up all the time, or you start your own. My words are still out there, just a mouse-click or two away, and I can speak much more freely and pleasantly over here anyway. I still value my free speech and the ability to speak my mind over all the crap that comes with it when you do. What saves us all is that 99 percent of everyone out there in this field of interest could give a damn either way, they just enjoy looking at the toy trains, and that’s how it should be.

Now, as we are actually not speaking to each other at the moment, that’s all I have to say to you.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Gary Johnson » Thu May 16, 2013 6:04 pm

Damn!
I could have sworn I just heard those two old foes speaking to each other.
I must be losing my mind....

The story of the many train collectable groups breaking off from each other and starting their own group is straight out of LIFE OF BRIAN and the many anti-Roman splinter groups that have sprung up, until even Cleese's Reg can't keep them all straight....
(And we especially hate the People's Front of Judea....WAIT!!....we're the People's Front of Judea!!)

Which proves the age old adage that all things in life eventually revert back to Python.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Thu May 16, 2013 6:33 pm

Gary Johnson wrote:Damn!
I could have sworn I just heard those two old foes speaking to each other.
I must be losing my mind....




Yes, I know, and we all had a good chuckle at the idea of ol' Robert "Evil Bob" Birchard lecturing us on civil discourse, but apparently something I said put him in a snit as he went over to Nitrateville today and went out of the way to pull an old comment I had made about film speeds on Harold Lloyd films and used it to make a crack and generally throw nasties at me where i can't talk back. So much for his concepts of fair play and civility.




The story of the many train collectable groups breaking off from each other and starting their own group is straight out of LIFE OF BRIAN and the many anti-Roman splinter groups that have sprung up, until even Cleese's Reg can't keep them all straight....
(And we especially hate the People's Front of Judea....WAIT!!....we're the People's Front of Judea!!)

Which proves the age old adage that all things in life eventually revert back to Python
[/quote]

SPLITTERS!!!!!!!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Thu May 16, 2013 6:38 pm

Oh, and I forgot to thank Annichen for her nice words the other day regarding this group, our words, and honest talk regarding Nitrateville. They are indeed appreciated, and all I can say is spread the word about our group here and let people know that there is always an alternative to that other place. We'll keep on grinding away here as time permits.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Ed Watz
Associate
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:35 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Ed Watz » Fri May 17, 2013 7:06 am

I haven't spent much time on N-ville lately but I've perused enough of it this past week to know the score. It boils down to the fact that Richard is never insincere. He tells you the truth, and he doesn't shy away from it. You like it or you don't, but he always tells the truth as he sees it and knows it. I'd take a rebuke from Richard and learn from it -- any time.
"Of course he smiled -- just like you and me." -- Harold Goodwin, on Buster Keaton (1976)

Bob Birchard

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Bob Birchard » Fri May 17, 2013 7:56 am

Richard M Roberts wrote: Yes, I know, and we all had a good chuckle at the idea of ol' Robert "Evil Bob" Birchard lecturing us on civil discourse, but apparently something I said put him in a snit as he went over to Nitrateville today and went out of the way to pull an old comment I had made about film speeds on Harold Lloyd films and used it to make a crack and generally throw nasties at me where i can't talk back. So much for his concepts of fair play and civility.


So, let me get this straight . . . Richard M. Roberts, the fellow who is all for "free speech and facts" and advocates "uncensored corrections" and has "argued . . . that anyone bothered by . . . [a] low level a remark . . . must be having difficulty coping in general" and who objects to "heavy-handed . . . civility policing over actual discourse, or . . . pompous windbags who . . . have hissy fits if you suggest they might have it wrong" and who sincerely believes that those who feel upset because the "tall guy has stepped on their dreams and egos by his horrible suggestions that they are wrong or something they did or believe in the area of movies may not be as terrific as they think it is" and who seem to be "frequently the ones who get the most upset when one calls them on something" and counters that "if they are so disturbed by my words, that’s what a public forum is for folks, rather than trying to un-level the playing field behind the scenes, use it. It’s what discussion is all about, and you win some and lose some. If your ideas are so fragile that you can’t play fair to keep them, you might just want to rethink them anyway" . . . that Richard M. Roberts (?) now objects that I commented in a rather mild way (or at least so I thought) on "an old comment [he] made about film speeds on Harold Lloyd films and used it to make a crack and generally throw nasties at me [RMR] where I can't talk back" Well, Richard, in an effort to promote unfettered discussion and the free exchange of ideas, I am happy to re-play my egregious "nasties" from Nitrateville right here and now, and feel free to comment or not as you please:

"Bob Birchard wrote:
Richard M Roberts wrote:20fps would kill SAFETY LAST's timing and pacing, and I would be surprised if Suzanne Lloyd would allow it as Harold Lloyd was actually a pretty serious stickler for running his films at the correct faster speeds. If so, it's just one more death to a silent film comedy classic in Digital.

Having actually discussed this issue with Harold Lloyd, I'm sure he would have been thrilled to present his films at the speed they were intended to run. What he adamantly disliked was step-printing--as Chaplin had done with his films. Lloyd felt that step-printing (double-printing every other frame to slow them down for 24 fps sound standard projection) introduced a jerkiness to the image that hurt the viewing experience, and he felt that running the films at 24fps (without step printing) was preferable, which is not the same thing as saying that he preferred to run them faster than intended.

As for 20 fps (if indeed that was the speed at which Safety Last was transferred) being "one more death to a silent film comedy classic in Digital," I am at least willing to wait to express my "lofty opinion" until after I've seen the Blu-Ray."

Oh, and BTW, you have made it quite clear you don't like me, I can't say I feel the same about you. I actually miss the long friendship we shared before you slammed the iron door, and I will be among the first in line to buy your book when ordering details are made available.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Fri May 17, 2013 12:26 pm

So, let me get this straight . . . Richard M. Roberts, the fellow who is all for "free speech and facts" and advocates "uncensored corrections" and has "argued . . . that anyone bothered by . . . [a] low level a remark . . . must be having difficulty coping in general" and who objects to "heavy-handed . . . civility policing over actual discourse, or . . . pompous windbags who . . . have hissy fits if you suggest they might have it wrong" and who sincerely believes that those who feel upset because the "tall guy has stepped on their dreams and egos by his horrible suggestions that they are wrong or something they did or believe in the area of movies may not be as terrific as they think it is" and who seem to be "frequently the ones who get the most upset when one calls them on something" and counters that "if they are so disturbed by my words, that’s what a public forum is for folks, rather than trying to un-level the playing field behind the scenes, use it. It’s what discussion is all about, and you win some and lose some. If your ideas are so fragile that you can’t play fair to keep them, you might just want to rethink them anyway" . . . that Richard M. Roberts (?) now objects that I commented in a rather mild way (or at least so I thought) on "an old comment [he] made about film speeds on Harold Lloyd films and used it to make a crack and generally throw nasties at me [RMR] where I can't talk back" Well, Richard, in an effort to promote unfettered discussion and the free exchange of ideas, I am happy to re-play my egregious "nasties" from Nitrateville right here and now, and feel free to comment or not as you please:




Yep, he’s definitely in a snit.

Well, no ones stopping you from sayin it over here Birchard. Are they? I could drop this and you from this newsgroup with a mouse-click (and flip you like a cheese-omelette!), but I’m not raising a finger to do so.

"Bob Birchard wrote:
Richard M Roberts wrote:20fps would kill SAFETY LAST's timing and pacing, and I would be surprised if Suzanne Lloyd would allow it as Harold Lloyd was actually a pretty serious stickler for running his films at the correct faster speeds. If so, it's just one more death to a silent film comedy classic in Digital.

Having actually discussed this issue with Harold Lloyd, I'm sure he would have been thrilled to present his films at the speed they were intended to run. What he adamantly disliked was step-printing--as Chaplin had done with his films. Lloyd felt that step-printing (double-printing every other frame to slow them down for 24 fps sound standard projection) introduced a jerkiness to the image that hurt the viewing experience, and he felt that running the films at 24fps (without step printing) was preferable, which is not the same thing as saying that he preferred to run them faster than intended.

As for 20 fps (if indeed that was the speed at which Safety Last was transferred) being "one more death to a silent film comedy classic in Digital," I am at least willing to wait to express my "lofty opinion" until after I've seen the Blu-Ray."




Well goody for you. I was commenting on a Blu-Ray release that listed the film running at 84 minutes at the time, which unless they found more than a reel of extra footage of Lloyd falling off that building meant that it was transferred too damn slow. I said it now and I’ll say it again, 20 fps is too damn slow to run SAFETY LAST at and if that was what they did, it was just another comedy killing recent digital release. Now they’ve revised their typo (if that’s what it was) and it indicates it’s running at the correct speed, hooray, I guess, if you need one more copy of SAFETY LAST, which I don’t.

But it is amazing to know that you could actually read Harold Lloyd’s mind in the exact running speeds that he wanted his films run apart from 24 fps. Gaylord Carter told me that Lloyd always wanted his films run at 24 fps, period, and when playing for them he demanded that speed even when more rheostatic flexibility was available. I think Gaylord knew Harold better than you did, and certainly worked with those films a lot longer, though perhaps he couldn’t pierce the veil and read his mind. And to the Lloyd Estates credit, the speeds on their last Lloyd DVD set were for the most part fine (too slow on some of the one-reelers, the features were good).



Oh, and BTW, you have made it quite clear you don't like me, I can't say I feel the same about you. I actually miss the long friendship we shared before you slammed the iron door, and I will be among the first in line to buy your book when ordering details are made available.





Awwwwww-----did you hear that you bitches in Cell Block 11! He misses me!

Well, if you miss me so damn much, one public apology and a retraction on Nitrateville would wipe the slate clean (careful Roberts, if he does it, you’d actually have to be nice to him again). I still won’t come to Cinecon unless you actually show something I want to see, but at least I’d nod to you if we’re passing each other in a Theater Aisle.

And see, I was right, book sales are not affected by personal likes and dislikes.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Gary Johnson » Fri May 17, 2013 6:33 pm

For the sake of the children.......kiss and make up, you two lugs!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 10 guests