Cinema Futura: A subjective pick of the 60 best science fiction films, except it's not "the 60 best science fiction films ever."
Cinema Futura is a collection of essays edited by sci-fi author Mark Morris. The essays themselves (60 of them, each about 1000 words) come from several other sci-fi personalities. Some of the personalities will be recognisable to even the casual reader (Peter F. Hamilton wrote an essay on Aliens) while some will need to make themselves known by the contributor notes at the end.…
Article comments
26 - roger nowosielski
Not false standards, zing, but the only standards available.
27 - zingzing
"Failing that, how does one go back and point to an example?"
well, if one makes an accusation, one ought to prove it. don't you think? i haven't seen anyone edited on purely political grounds. if you wrap a political argument up in a series of insults, you're going to get the comment edited. the comments editors aren't going to extract your political argument from your insults. learn how to express yourself without insulting people, and you won't get edited. it's fucking simple.
"comment #24 shows just how deep you are in the pocket of Christopher Rose."
all i'm saying is prove it. you're denouncing the comments editors as fascists and you don't want to prove it, just because it's difficult? mccarthy would love you.
28 - zingzing
"Not false standards, zing, but the only standards available."
when you try to judge a personality on a persona, it's a false standard. i'm sure alan wouldn't dare act like he does here in public. now, i like to make judgments upon him, but i'm not naive enough to think i'm really privy to alan's deeper psychological motivations. he's playing a part.
you say my argument is a gross and self-serving simplification. but that's a pretty gross and self-serving simplification as well. and who would have seen alan and roger getting together in a pointless battle against a comments editor who holds all the cards?
if you can prove (or at least recall a time) where you were edited PURELY on political grounds, i'd have as much a problem with that as you would. that would be political censorship. if it's just some insults that got edited, well, that's just niceties. them's the rules. and get over it.
29 - Alan Kurtz
Learn how to express yourself without insulting people, and you won't get edited.
zingzing (#27): Nov 14, 2010
nah, it's because you're an asshole to everyone, irvin. chris got involved because he got sick of you insulting everyone, and you took to insulting him. do you not see the problem here? if not, you ARE a "dimwitted dolt." he tried some constructive criticism, but you just responded with insults. connect the dots, idiot.
zingzing (#110): Nov 12, 2010
Obviously, it's OK for you and Mr. Rose to insult people, but wrong for his critics to do so.
zingzing, your perennial immunity from BC's Official Comment Policy, which your patron saint Mr. Rose "enforces" with such selective favoritism, is proof positive that you are in his pocket. You are a blunt instrument with which he polices BC's commentary threads. Just as he expects, you vilify those whom St. Christopher has accused of Anathema on their way to Excommunication. You are a lamb.
30 - zingzing
i fully expected that to get edited. and i wouldn't complain if it was. in fact, that's kinda why i wrote it. i'm disappointed. i'll admit that the fact that it still exists is rather baffling, but i have no control over it. maybe chris checked out. or hasn't been on duty since that time. i dunno.
"You are a blunt instrument with which he polices BC's commentary threads."
i don't see how me getting away with shit makes me a "blunt instrument with which he polices." and i've been edited many, many times before. far more than you ever have. i've probably been edited more than you have since you've shown up round these parts. i'd bet we're running pretty close to even at the least. even reprimanded for being a little too nasty.
but i know when and where to do it. if i want something to stick around, i'll be very careful about where i place my insults.
like right at the end, you [Edited]. that was a joke, son. are you even listening?
31 - zingzing
and where's your ire for doc? do you only despise chris? i'm sure doc has been responsible for as much of the editing of you as chris has. why have you designated chris as your sole enemy? at least put some of the blame on doc. sorry doc.
32 - Alan Kurtz
No, since you ask (#31), I don't only despise Chris. I also despise you.
33 - zingzing
for what? disagreeing? ah, poor baby. i'm so sawwy. i'ma go cwy a bit in the cowna. wait for mommy to come hold me.
34 - Alan Kurtz
Not for disagreeing. For being zingzing, a thoroughly despicable creature.
35 - roger nowosielski
He doesn't realize that, Alan. Zing takes himself for a very agreeable human, a real peacemaker if I may say. There are rules, and the rules are there to live by. That's the world according to zing. But actually, it's symptomatic of the sick liberal mindset. It's tyrannical when it comes to protocol. And it's unaware of its tyrannical aspect because of its preoccupation with issues of social justice on a piecemeal, reform type of basis. Indeed, on this view, a typical liberal is more conventional than a conservative. And their feeling good about themselves and about their intent hides from them the fact that in reality they're petty tyrants.
36 - Christopher Rose
Roger, to the best of my knowledge it simply isn't true that comments are being edited "because the comments editors happen to disagree with the views expressed" nor that "the commenters are being ridiculed simply for the fact that their views are disagreeable".
My participation in the comments space is almost always in a personal capacity and, on those rare occasions I do have to make a comment as the Comments Editor, I always make it clear that is the case.
When you contacted Barbara and others, being new they hadn't had any previous experience of being contacted about comments matters and when they told you "we'll take care of it", they did, by referring the matter to me, which is what one would expect them to do.
If you knew how difficult it is to get things done in terms of managing the comments space or to introduce any of several new features Rob and I would like to see, you wouldn't say things like "you are a big whig in BC organizational structure and what you say goes. The so-called editors or executive directors all stand in awe of you", which is so entirely inaccurate as to be comedic. I would hope they appreciate how hard I try to provide a level playing field for a very divergent group but really have no idea about that as it isn't something we discuss.
As an individual, my views are of exactly the same value and importance as those of anybody else, although to my own personal way of thinking I trust my own views more because I have a higher degree of confidence that I am more willing to look at the merits of an argument than some, who clearly are bound in loyal service to one dogma or another.
I agree that in theory I could overwhelm any views that disagree with my own if I wanted to but that is purely theoretical because I am opposed to such an abuse on practical, community grounds and in principle. Furthermore and at the rest of being too repetitive, you can always contact me if you think I was doing such a thing and escalate matters if required.
Alan, you'd be surprised how many people do keep copies of their posts to all kinds of sites for a variety of reasons. In your case it might be that you have decided not to trust certain people on principle regardless of the facts but that is obviously speculation on my part...
37 - roger nowosielski
Fair enough. I'm not going to wash dirty laundry in public, Chris, but I'll reserve the right to call you on it if and when the occasion should arise. So let's put it behind us.
38 - Christopher Rose
Oh, Alan, do you recognise the distinction between gratuitously insulting somebody and accurately describing someone's behaviour?
Irv has been self-indulgently attacking people rather than debating ideas, which is why I stepped in, to curtail that, not his points of view. Technically, it seems accurate to describe such behaviour as being that of an "asshole", so does it not then follow that that was not a personal attack?
Alan, it is starting to appear that you simply want to have an axe to grind rather than make any substantial or specific point or to request a review of or make a complaint to me about anything to do with how the comments space is managed.
As I have pointed out before, I don't see that the comments space is the right venue for an extended debate about how the comments space is managed, particularly in the context where no complaint has in fact been made nor any attempt made to raise an issue with me. It becomes a debate about debating rather than a debate about ideas. At some point, one has to draw a line under the meta-debate. I'm leaving all the back and forth between zingzing and you in place as it appears to show quite clearly the characters involved here but otherwise feel this topic has run its course, particularly as it is not the first time we have had it.
39 - Alan Kurtz
Technically, it seems accurate to describe such behaviour as being that of an "asshole" …
I disagree. Calling someone an asshole is not a technical description. It's an insult.
On the other hand, in his same post (#110), zingzing also called Irvin F. Cohen an "idiot."
As I'm sure you're aware from personal experience, that is a technical description of individuals having an IQ below 30. It is therefore a misnomer to classify Mr. Cohen as an idiot. But it's not an insult.
40 - Christopher Rose
So you object to Irv being referred to as an asshole but not as an idiot? Noted, but now we must be moving on so, if you have any further issues, which I feel should be dealt with formally if you do, please do raise them directly with me and I look forward to hearing from you in that case.
41 - roger nowosielski
Alan,
IFC calls people assholes on a regular basis; it's his standard repertoire. He forfeited the right to cry uncle when the shoe is on the other foot.
42 - roger nowosielski
And if I were to say of Cohen that he's being a dickhead, I'm only referring to his behavior. It's not, in the right kind of context, a personal attack.
43 - Alan Kurtz
Roger Nowosielski (#41), as far as I know (I could be wrong), Irvin F. Cohen has not specifically objected to being called an asshole.
However, as a BC reader and commenter, I object to zingzing calling Mr. Cohen or anyone else an asshole. It's not intended, as Mr. Rose would have us believe, as a technical description. It's meant as an insult.
44 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps you're right, Alan, but I'm in no position to ever divine anyone's intent. Form of words and context are the only things to go by. I'm only trying to be fair, though I agree that zing can be annoying at times.
45 - zingzing
roger: "a typical liberal is more conventional than a conservative. And their feeling good about themselves and about their intent hides from them the fact that in reality they're petty tyrants."
you do what you want, i'll do what i want, ok? mmm, tyranny.
roger: "And if I were to say of Cohen that he's being a dickhead, I'm only referring to his behavior. It's not, in the right kind of context, a personal attack."
how liberal.
alan: "However, as a BC reader and commenter, I object to zingzing calling Mr. Cohen or anyone else an asshole."
asshole. technically, you have one, and a part of you is one. that part is this one. i'm pointing at you.
roger: "I'm in no position to ever divine anyone's intent."
you're awful at it. so i'm glad you recognize. i was going to have to regulate. i hate regulating. when i regulate, shit ends. and it don't end well.
roger: "I agree that zing can be annoying at times."
i'm eating your mother.