You can find an article on http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2006-02-16/bitdepth.html "The Trinidad Guardian"
You can find another article http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=3376&IssueNum=143 here, on L.A. City Beat.
[deleted]
Oh come on, lay off.
HF has about 4 paragraphs to itself in the Guardian article, the City Beat article only mentions it briefly but I still think it merits HF in the subject of the thread due to its exposure in the Guardian article. Hidden Frontier (along with New Voyages and Intrepid) has had its own articles is Star Trek Magazine here in the UK. And I've seen an article on New Voyages in either The Times or The Independant as well as on the BBC. I'd call that decent exposure in mainstream press. And I doubt these were comissioned by members of the cast and/or crew, all the way in the UK.
Tony again? [shaking head]
It always upsets him when we get decent press, or even neutral press for that matter. He doesn't like to be contradicted in even the smallest thing, and having the legitimate press write favorably about us contradicts all the nasty things he's trying to convince people are true.
Now, as he's convinced himself that they're true, the legitimate press has either 1) been hoodwinked by us, or 2) is lying to cover us. The third possibility, that they might be telling the truth, just isn't available to him. If it's something nice about us, he figures, it HAS to be a lie.
So, he loudly announces that we're writing the articles ourselves as stringers and feeding them to papers, or that we've "bribed" a writer to say nice things about us (as he accused the Variety writer of being bribed by us). When neither of those holds water, he then accuses the reporters of poor journalism and tainted professional ethics. After all, they wrote something nice about us, and he knows that CAN'T be true. Nothing nice about us can EVER be true. It's all a pack of lies, perpetuated by our powerful allies in the media.
[snort] I'd like to hear his rationalization as to why we haven't used our non-existent allies in the media to trash his reputation. If we were as powerful and all-pervasive as he tries to get people to believe, why do none of the articles mention him as our cruel attacker? It could be because we have better ethics than he does, but that's not an acceptable explanation because it casts us in a better light than him. Okay, we've got a real contradiction here: we're more powerful than he is, with powerful friends in the media, but we haven't used that power to crush him, despite the fact we are so evil and cruel, especially to him.
How can we possibly have enough power to crush him, yet stay our hand? Certainly, he's given no one a reason to tolerate him, yet alone love him. Certainly, if he had the power he credits us with, he'd crush us and feel virtuous about a good deed done. So, we must have some ulterior motive. It certainly cannot be postulated that we don't HAVE that power, because his whole rant about ANY mention of us in the press is predicated on the idea that we DO have that kind of power. And he would never contradict himself, would he?
In the meantime, FoxNews http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189153,00.html has also reported on us. Although why we would waste perfectly good agents to infiltrate FoxNews is beyond me: it's widely felt by many that "FoxNews" is a contradiction in terms. Why wouldn't we use our great media power to get a RESPECTED news source to report on us?
It's almost a $cientology attitude. Always attack, never defend. Even if what you're attacking is proven, verifiable truth, never back down, never admit defeat.
Personally, if Faux News said the sky was blue, I'd have to check outside my window just to make sure.
With all this time and effort spent attacking something he's free to ignore, one has to wonder what is it about HF that upsets or scares him so much?
Ah! $cientology! I THOUGHT the tactics looked familiar, but couldn't place them. Yes, always attack anyone who contradicts you, especially if they're telling the truth, and keep attacking, over and over, until the target surrenders. L. Ron Hubbard himself wrote that up in their tactics book. He also said that it was acceptable to do ANYthing to an enemy of $cientology: lie about them, sue them, even kill them.
Yeah, Faux News and OMS have that in common: verify their statements, because they don't. (I guess they only have to report; verification is someone else's job.)
I don't think he's scared. I think he's upset and jealous because we've been successful despite the fact that he's not on-board as chief advisor and Protector of How the Professionals Do It. (Of course, how the professionals do it is to spend millions of dollars and be contractually obligated to hire more labor than is needed.) He really wants to feel needed and respected, and we don't need him and we've lost all respect for him. That we lost all respect for him, that no one who reads his writings respects him, that's entirely his fault. But he cannot accept the blame for his own actions, so the strangers who agree with us MUST be our mindless syncophants. And he'll keep repeating that "useful fact" over and over until hopefully, SOMEone believes it.
(You should also see how the self-proclaimed Defender of Internet Free Speech goes around censoring his critics on Variety.com.)
Several fan films, including Hidden Frontier, U.S.S. Intrepid, and New Voyages, were mentioned in a front page article in the New York times. The link, which might require a membership to view, is http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/arts/television/18trek.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hpQ26exQ3D1150689600Q26enQ3Db029ea26cee9eddcQ26eiQ3D5094Q26partnerQ3Dhomepage&OP=4c932910Q2FE@28EewrQ3CQ7CwwulElWWxEWxEi1ECQ7CuQ3CEu2g2bSQ3CSwyEi1uQ7C2aoQ51udg
Hidden Frontier was also prominently featured in a segment about fan films on the Today Show at about 09:45 PDT on Monday, June 19th, 2006.
J.T. Tepnepa is expected to be interviewed on MSNBC at about 20:30 EDT on Tuesday, June 20th, 2006.
Other appearances are currently in discussion, and this item will be updated as they become known.
Recently, Hidden Frontier has had two follow-up articles written about it: one by Variety and another by AfterElton.com.
The second article on Variety can be found at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117947016?categoryid=2267&cs=1.
Amusingly enough, the second article on AfterElton.com is at least partly about the sudden rash of mainstream articles on Hidden Frontier after the first article appeared, including mentions of our appearances on ABC and the Today Show.
The link is here: http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2006/8/frontier.html
The flurry of mainstream articles, almost without exception being written from a respectful viewpoint instead of the usual mockery fans have to put up with, have prompted new speculations from fans that one or more fan films might get licensed by Paramount/CBS and go mainstream. For good or ill, this can never happen, but is a topic that comes up periodically even so.
And to our pleased surprised, this exclusive article on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5305450.stm
It has only a few minor mistakes in it (we never filmed in a garage, and the backgrounds are not added in post, but are live-keyed instead), but on the whole is a very good article.
John, it's excellent that you're getting so much press lately. You guys deserve it; you've got a really good thing going with Hidden Frontier.
BTW, I'm DYING for 705 to come out...I'm suffering from HF withdrawl. It looks pretty intense from the previews. Anyway, congrats on all the press, and keep up the good work.
You want a room with a view? You'll need ideas for walls.
We're as surprised as anyone at the sudden flurry of publicity, albeit pleasantly. (We also, appropriately enough, had an article in a recent issue of "Frontier"; we found out about it at the convention we attended this weekend just passed.)
Episode 705 is scheduled out in November; we have some more taping to do this upcoming weekend.
Excellent. I'll look forward to it. Thanks for the info!
You want a room with a view? You'll need ideas for walls.
Well, if anyone knows how to produce an SF show and special effects on a shoestring budget, it's the BBC
shareYeah. I remember watching them cut through a metal bulkhead on Dr. Who once, made of the finest foamcore cardboard. And I love the way they've unapologetically mixed video and film in the same episodes.
shareHere is a link to a clip from The Today Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEiz9PtSFUE&mode=related&search=
And here is a link to a clip from ABC News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpYoRTveDJM&mode=related&search=
If you find any other links to Hidden Frontier articles or video, please feel free to post those links here.
Trek United's newsletter, Hailing Frequencies Open, has an article on Hidden Frontier. Look in the Fanfilms news section. http://www.trekunited.com/news/newsletter.html
shareThe May issue (#355) of Starlog has an article on "Of Gods and Men", which also mentions Hidden Frontier, Exeter, and New Voyages in the context of trail-blazers "for the scores of other serious-minded fan-created films and series that have since appeared in cyberspace, exploring worlds that have gone uncharted in the official shows."
[deleted]
[deleted]
http://www.startrekofgodsandmen.com/
I just received the news tonight that Of Gods and Men, the mini-series that blurs the line between fan films and independent productions, will be delayed. No time frame is given, but the reason for the delay is given as being "it is an all-volunteer production, all of whom have day jobs."
This is a problem that any all-volunteer organization faces, and I wish to take this opportunity to offer my personal sympathies and good wishes.
Best of luck, people! I'm looking forward to seeing your work. I'm sure you'll raise the bar another notch or two.
Here's an excellent article on the various major fan film productions, and the roles women have played in them. http://www.scifistudios.com/magazine/content/view/118/2/
shareAt the bottom of this transcript is the article on Star Trek fan films, including Hidden Frontier. This article is approximately one year old.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13438740/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/10/2479_trekkies_with_d.html
It's just a brief mention.
Sorry that I haven't been keeping up on all the places that Hidden Frontier is mentioned; that would be a full-time job. Do look for the Los Angeles Times article on Hidden Frontier coming in the next few weeks. (If I get sufficient advanced notice, I'll get that information to you here.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hidden Frontier isn't Gay Trek. It isn't Black Trek. It isn't Asian Trek. It isn't Hetero Trek. It isn't Russian Trek. It isn't Male Trek. It isn't Female Trek.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Olberman chose that particular description in an attempt at humor, because Mr. Olberman has a reputation of being an accurate and fair reporter most of the time. None the less, I don't hold this minor slip against him; he is, after all, rather conservative and therefore a bit behind the times. Fortunately, being conservative does not automatically (mean) being a bigot as well, and for that, he is to be commended.
[Edited to add a missing word.]
Keith Olberman is pretty much the only person on cable news that I can stand to watch for any length of time.
Talk about getting some press, if you live anywhere in the pacific northwest, check out Monday, May 14th's episode of Evening Magazine. For those who can't pick up King 5, but you live in Washington, Oregon or Idaho, the episode repeats on Notherwest Cable News.
They will be showing a 1 minute teaser/preview of our fan film.
This is going to be interesting!
Congratulations!
Unfortunately, I'm not in reception range. Maybe they'll have a website link I can watch it from.
Well, that's perhaps not strictly accurate. While the front page article in the Los Angeles Times on July 7th was most definitely about Hidden Frontier, the tv news crew that will be at a shoot in the future may be more interested in our present production than our recently completed effort. (For the conspiracy theorists out there, they contacted us; I've never even heard of them before. Then again, I'm not in Europe, I'm a typical ignorant American.)
The shooting date that they will be taping is confidential at this time, and of course, we have no idea what the proposed air date is as of yet. More news here as I learn of it.
And this brief article, in ComputorEdge magazine, an online magazine based in San Diego: http://gallery.hiddenfrontier.com/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=4321
I particularly like the line at the end: "If you had to be gorgeous to join Starfleet, there'd be no room for the rest of us."
GMTV now informs us that the Areakt Productions segment will be aired on Friday, August 10th during the Richard Arnold section of GMTV. The Richard Arnold section airs between 8:35 and 9:20 A.M. (GMT?). I believe a link is expected to become available later. If so, I shall bring that back here.
It's now 8/10/2007, and here's a YouTube link to the news story in the United Kingdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdsH3mZD9GY
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is an article on Areakt Productions (Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, Star Trek: Odyssey, and Star Trek: Helena Chronicles) in issue #362 of Starlog Magazine, which just recently went on sale.
shareHaving read the article, I can say that it was very positive, but does contain a couple of spoilers. (Some fans had already figured out at least one of the spoilers; now that the article is out, it does no harm to confirm that they guessed correctly.)
share[deleted]
6. has become famous for some reason and is widely talked about/referenced in non local media or the 'film community' or is now of general historic interest for some reason. **-NO-
I guess the New York Times, BBC, the Internet fora, and Starlog (among others) are "local media". I guess Variety is NOT a part of the 'film community' after all AND is "local media".
Given that he always, without exception, claims that our media exposure is somehow invalid, I hope that he someday explains what kind of media coverage he WOULD consider valid. (Actually, I suspect I already know the answer: no media coverage that has anything positive to say about us could possibly be valid. Only media coverage that agrees with his views about us would be valid. Right?)
[deleted]
Yep, it went to the Op-Ed section because it is an OPINION. But let's pretend for a moment that Tony will actually answer a direct question with a straight answer.
Hey, Tony. You claim that everything good written about us is false. But if it were actually true, would we have earned our place at IMDB?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I looked on LATIMES.COM (The Los Angeles Times is the paper that wrote the article he protested.). I cannot find any record of such a letter to the editor in the archives, although I can easily find the article itself. I strongly suspect it was never published.
shareSay, has anyone noticed how his messages keep getting deleted?
Are people asking the administrators to have them deleted, or are they (the administrators) now acting upon their own initiative? I hope the latter, as I haven't put in a request for a deletion in some time. It would be nice if we no longer had to put in specific requests to have libelous and inaccurate posts removed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The typical Tony double-standard: if HE slanders and libels someone, and the post gets removed, it's censorship. This, despite the Terms of Service, which specifically prohibit libelous posts and states unequivocally that they are subject to removal.
But if anyone says something negative about his posts, especially if factual, then THAT is libel and MUST be removed. But if it happens to someone else's posts, somehow, it's no longer censorship.
Still, this is just another symptom of his overall double-standard: He is right. Anyone who agrees with him is right. Anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and never mind that the facts themselves frequently disagree with him. Any fact that disagrees with him cannot be a "true fact". [snort] As if FACTS could come in true and false versions.
One fact remains clear, even to Tony: as long as anything positive is said about us, he will attack it, whether it is false or not. In point of fact, experience has shown that positive statements about us will be especially vigorously attacked if they are true.
I continue, especially in this holiday season, to pity him, and to hold out hope that he will get treatment. Unfortunately, the nature of his condition is such that he will never voluntarily seek treatment. Thus, we can only hope that some incident occurs that does not harm others, but none the less is serious enough for the authorities to step in, so he can finally receive the treatment he needs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, you've proven that it's an Op-Ed piece.
What you haven't proven is that it was ever published in the Los Angeles Times, the paper it was written for. Naturally, if you could furnish a date, I'd be happy to look it up.
[deleted]
True enough, Tony. But if the Los Angeles Times had actually published it, then it WOULD have been on the Internet. Unless some evidence comes down to indicate that I might be mistaken, I'm confident we can assume that this letter to the editor never saw print in the Times.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
While not exactly a mainstream article, this site has a nice article on several fanfilms, including Hidden Frontier. http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/04/fanmade-phase-ii-nebula-nom-ogam-pt-2- date-more/
[deleted]
I'm not up on the exact details of production, but at least part of the show is being taped here in the States with both casts. Whether additional segments are being taped in the U.K. and being sent to us is unknown to me.
Actually, much of that taping will be happening this next week, a fitting lead-in to our third micro-convention, Excelsior Ball 3. (Combining the two occasions is probably the only way the Intrepid people could afford to come out here.)
But yes, as is our tradition, a lot of it will be green-screen work, usually done as live-keying rather than in post-production.
You might consider going to our website http://www.hiddenfrontier.org and looking up the Excelsior Ball (a.k.a. EB3) to see if you'd be interested in joining us. Given that the tickets are free, the price is right. [grin]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Does that mean you won't be coming, Tony?
share[deleted]
You can find out when and where here: http://www.excelsiorball.com/
share[deleted]
Max, it's a free "convention": we wouldn't have the budget for such things, even if we felt they were desirable, which we do not.
Hotel security should be adequate for any disturbances, regardless of source.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, we have reservations at Cozymel's. As registration for the dinner ended in April, I regret to inform you that you will be unable to join us for dinner.
Is it safe to assume that you will be unable to attend our micro-convention?
[deleted]
[shrug] You expressed interest, Tony.
I am sure that you are actually available with facts. What has always puzzled me about you that even possessing the facts, you insist on presenting something libelous instead.
What would I be scared of? What allegedly makes me look scared? (This is similar to the questions I asked when you claimed I was jealous of you. I never got an answer on those, either.)
My LJ entry reported my pleasant surprise that after years of online abuse from you, you actually behaved well at a face to face meeting. If the report I made that you had behaved well is incorrect, please give me the correct facts.
In fact, I don't believe the LJ entry even mentioned your years of abuse, just my pleasant surprise at your unusually civil behavior. So, there can only be one thing about the entry that you consider a lie: that your behavior was civil.
Sorry, it appears that you're wrong on that point, too. Your behavior was actually what I wish it was the majority of the time, and it received several surprised comments of approval, and compliments. Obviously, my friends and co-workers also wished that your behavior more commonly accorded with that at the convention.
But as you yourself agree that it was "a simple straightforward meeting", it apparently is not your behavior that you think I was lying about. Unfortunately, there was nothing else in that post, except the fervently expressed hope that it signaled a change in your behavior for the better. Alas, we have seen in the subsequent year or so that it has not.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Silly bunch of fans you have, John. Truely rocket scientists <lol>
No ad hominem attacks; empty mind resorts to petty name calling."
I agree that empty minds resort to petty name calling. So, when are you going to stop? Do you ever plan to stop?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't understand why you are calling me a weasel, Tony. I merely quoted your own words and asked a question.
You said "Silly bunch of fans you have, John. Truely rocket scientists <lol>"
You also said, immediately afterwards, "No ad hominem attacks; empty mind resorts to petty name calling."
So, having you make a completely gratuitous insult and then point out that an "empty mind resorts to petty name calling" in the very next sentence shows several possibilities. 1) That you are a hypocrite with a "Do as I say, not as I actually DO" attitude. Or 2) that your grasp of reality is so poor that you genuinely do not see the hypocrisy or the double standard. Or 3) that you enjoy being ironic and don't mind a chuckle at your expense. Or possibly 4) that you are not actually mentally ill but merely stupid.
You haven't explained how my pointing out that you're basically accusing yourself of possessing an empty mind makes me a weasel. Nor have you yet managed to explain how I am wrong to point out what you've done. For that matter, I don't believe you've ever formally denied that making a petty insult in one sentence and then demanding that no one else make such petty insults in another sentence does nothing but make you look foolish.
And certainly calling me a weasel instead of actually addressing the question is the very definition of "ad hominem".
So, I ask you again, in slightly different format, when do you plan to stop making ad hominem attacks and making petty insults? DO you actually plan to stop making ad hominem attacks and making petty insults? And let me add a third, assuming that I've predicted the second answer accurately: why not?
[deleted]
In other words, the person who accuses ME of dishonesty cannot honestly answer a question.
And now he's upgraded the attacks: he does not merely consider Hidden Frontier staff to be "unethical", he now considers our fans to be unethical too.
"No ad hominem attacks; empty mind resorts to petty name calling."
And yet, despite recognizing that it is a small mind that resorts to simple name-calling, he cannot stop.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not enough that you have plagarize news articles, but you have plagarize and reguritate other forums comments on completely different subjects too, huh tony?
"Hey there, Not Impressed, feeling frustrated and angry? Do you find yourself getting easily irritated? Are you having problems coping? Have you slipped into that old habit of being nasty to those who disagree with you? Do you find youself perfecting the art of projection? I hope that you can learn to live with youself in a more healthy manner. I want to warn you that the answer does not inhabit the bottom of a pill bottle. Nor does the answer occupy the bottom of a can of beer nor the bottom of a bottle of wine. The hard truth is that you can only improve your self thru perfecting the art of self integrity. Good luck and thanks for all the laughs.
Comment #77 Posted by: Prozac | May 7, 2008 08:41 PM"
at THIS LINK:
http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/03/antiimmigrants_and_antifascist.shtml
Gotcha...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ha, better luck next time there, Tony, because as insults go that didn't even rate.
You resorting to plagarism to 'express a point' as you so call it (which looked more like your usual trolling to me)only says that you are incapable of having an original thought to make your position known and thus have to resort to regurgitation of one of your own trollings elsewhere (at best) and downright plagarism of others (at worst.) You undermined your own credibility there - but in truth you have already done a great job at that, didn't you?
You've already given yourself the reputation of a plagarist, so when something looks out of place with your usual nonsensical blather it just begs to be looked at further, and it didn't take but one try to find where you lifted that one from.
As for 'cut and paste' maybe all that paste you've been inhaling from your constant plagarism is a good explanation as to why you can't seem to come up with better arguments against HF, or have a more concise explanation for your obsession with Rob and Company, why your arguments have more holes in them than a block of swiss cheese and are frequently hypocritical since you yourself already admitted to allegedly making your own trek fanfilm (and I say allegedly since there really seems to be no evidence that it is anything but vaporfilm.)
You comment about Internet Stalking is hilarious at best and pathetic at worst, since you're very busy stalking HF and indeed many of the other fanfilms for years now and have managed to get yourself banned from more than one place for your actions. It is perhaps fortunate that the moderators here seem to be quite lenient, as I have no doubt that you would have been tossed out on your ear long ago if they had not been. The truth of it is this: You are just not worth 'stalking' there Tony - and since I rarely post on this board that term when used on me is a weak insult. I'm not the first person to expose your plagaristic lies, and I probably won't be the last.
"You can 'cut and paste' words that express a point under fair use and zillions of innocent uses; others can't?"
Tony clearly does not understand the doctrine of Fair Use. He feels that making someone else's words look like his own is only "Fair Use", that he can extensively quote someone else without any attribution at all, and that is permitted under copyright law.
I propose that we give him an example of his idea of Fair Use and see if he still feels the same way.
Let us take a single page from his website (without photographs), post it somewhere without attribution so that it looks like one of us is making the claims on the page, and see if it still remains Fair Use in his opinion when it's his own words being used. (I like the idea of using the page where he boasts about all of his Hollywood contacts.)
Now, it strikes me as likely that he will complain without ever once understanding that that is exactly what he is doing to other people; he has long demonstrated an ability to believe that double standards are perfectly fair if he's the one who has set them. But even if he is incapable of realizing that what he is doing is wrong, he just might be able to realize that his actions are wrong when he sees someone else doing the exact same thing.
I like that idea.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
An article about Excelsior Ball 3 here at TrekWeb: http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/07/01/Con-Report-Fan-Film-Community-R eunited-at-Excelsior-Ball-III.shtml
shareThere's an article on Hidden Frontier Productions covering both Hidden Frontier and our first non-Trek production, Frontier Guard. You can read it here: http://www.pasadenanow.com/main/2009/07/14/star-trek-fan-films-produce d-by-pasadena-filmmaker
share[deleted]
This is not "more to the article", this is an Op-Ed reaction to it. I wonder if the letter to the editor was published, even in part.
share[deleted]
The link has a diatribe, not facts.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Tony, I cannot recall a single time that you have posted a fact. I certainly cannot recall any times in which you actually supplied proof of any sort to support your statements.
I can recall a lot of instances of you posting an opinion or even an outright lie and then pointing to one of your own posts elsewhere as "proof" that because you'd said it twice in two different locations, it was somehow true.
I can also recall a lot of times when you were ASKED to provide proof and you either ignored the requests, or refused them outright.
No, I have no problem with you linking to your site. I only have a problem with the fact that you won't allow any dissenting opinions on your site, and the fact that you claim it is an accurate source of information when it is most decidedly just the opposite. I just wish that you'd label it accurately when you linked to it: "This is my hate site for Hidden Frontier. Anyone who hates Hidden Frontier for any reason whatsoever is welcome to join it."
Then again, you never accurately labeled those articles you stole from others and rewrote to force them to look like complaints about Hidden Frontier either. So, while I'm disappointed that you continue to mislabel it as a source of facts, I cannot honestly say I'm surprised.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Dealing with Tony is a lot like the poor waitress dealing with this customer http://notalwaysright.com/changing-the-world-two-letters-at-a-time/233 3.
You just can't tell him anything and have it stick. He desperately wants what he says to be true, so he keeps repeating it, just like the customer, hoping it will become true. And if he could actually understand that what he's saying is false, he would then go out and try to force it to be true anyway, just like the customer.
For example, Glenn Harrison himself has repeatedly and publicly repudiated his words, saying they were spoken in the heat of the moment. He's even written Tony to tell him that personally, but Tony isn't interested in that. Glenn was angry at us once, therefore Glenn will always be angry at us, as far as Tony is concerned. Mere facts must not be allowed to get in the way.
The DVDs were and are to this day ONLY available to cast and crew, but because ONE public announcement was erroneously made, we're selling DVDs. That the announcement was immediately corrected within minutes is irrelevant; as far as he's concerned, we're shilling DVDs of our work at every convention we're invited to. (Ever try to send an agent of yours over to our table to actually try to buy a set of DVDs, Tony? They would quickly find out that the DVDs were NEVER available to the public. But fact-checking is work for menials, isn't it?)
He goes on and on about our alleged copyright violations. Did he ever mention that HE is the "established creator" of the Red Shirt Insurance video (sometimes mislabeled as a "series")? Did he ever mention that he built a Tardis for someone else's Dr. Who fanfilm? Where was his crusade against copyright violation then? Did he mention that he COLLECTS fan films, having something like sixty-some in his collection?
Did he mention that he repeatedly reported us to Paramount, and that they have repeatedly ignored him? Did he mention that Paramount has always known of our existence, yet has never sent us a cease and desist order (as is their legal right)? Did he mention that he's been harassing us like this for approximately TEN YEARS now?
How about this one: did he mention that he was in two of our predecessor fanfilms? Did he mention that he was going to be in a Hidden Frontier episode before he quit at the last minute? How does that square with his stated beliefs? Helping the enemy break the law?
Tony claims to bring you the "real true facts" about us, but he doesn't deliver on his claim. And he certainly does not bring you the "real true facts" about himself, or the vicious vendetta he has held for a decade. He likes to say that we're the pot calling the kettle black, but he never admits that the kettle is, in fact, right.
Perhaps it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but it remains a fact that pretty much everything Tony has accused us of is something that he has done himself as well.
And that does not include the actions he's performed which we have NOT done, such as finding a person's negative article on some subject and rewriting it so that it sounds like the person is talking about Hidden Frontier instead. We certainly have never done that to him. We also don't make a habit of writing letters to the editor any time he gets mentioned positively in the news. (Admittedly, that one's easy, as he's never actually BEEN mentioned in the news that we know of.)
The "real true fact" to take away from this is that on the very rare occasion Tony actually says something true, he filters it through something like a Rush Limbaugh/National Enquirer type of distortion. That way, he can create the impression of a very different conclusion to be drawn than what the fact actually means. And the rest of the time, what he's saying is a complete fabrication.
"The factual corrections to the fake PasadenaNow Puff Piece on Hidden Frontier matters article got from LINK:"
No, it wasn't a fake article, they really did write it.
And how do you feel that you got the facts from a link to a post YOU made? How does that actually offer independent verification of what you said? All it really proves is 1) you posted the same comment in two different places, and 2) you know how to cut and paste. If I post something in a thousand places and post links to each of them, does that by itself make what I said true? If not, why would it work any better for you?
How about citing a third source instead, if you want to actually verify something?
[deleted]
Let's see now.
1. No, we never had a video production studio in Palmdale. We have an extremely unstable individual stalking us, and we didn't want him anywhere near us. Palmdale was mentioned for awhile, and I followed the official stance on this, despite never being comfortable with it.
2. I don't know what the zip code is, but possibly it's in Altadena.
3. That Rob did some editing work at a porn facility is important only to you. A job is a job. Is this relevant somehow?
4. No, we never shot on film. But if you're still going on and on about "filming", would you prefer the term "lensing"? After all, tape isn't going to be around much longer, either, and I wouldn't want you upset over us "taping" when it goes straight to the computer. C'mon, Tony, how is this RELEVANT?
5. Hidden Frontier has never released its projects for sale. Cast and crew have access to the DVDs, but even they are asked only to contribute some money to cover the costs of cases, printing, et cetera. I say again, because you keep missing it, they have NEVER been for sale. And the public has NO access to them at all.
I've answered all of your questions. Are you now prepared to answer mine?
[deleted]
We lied about the studio being in Palmdale because we have a dangerously unstable man stalking us. He has spent the last TEN YEARS stalking us, harassing us, libeling us, and doing his best to actively interfere with our operations.
And I don't give a damn if the studio is in Altadena or Pasadena: they are adjacent to each other with a common border. Does a mile or two actually matter?
[shrug] I have never heard anyone denying that Rob worked for awhile editing porn films. (Funny, they still call them porn "films" even though they're not on film or even tape any more.)
And who gives a good God damn if it's tape or film? That's unimportant trivia even by your standards, Tony. You boast about working in the film industry, even though many movies are done on digital tape and only go to film for distribution. And many movie theatres are experimenting with purely digital presentations, so even they aren't using film any more.
Also, you haven't debunked the "lie" about the disks not being for sale; they haven't been for sale. Ever. How is it you are willing to accept that I'm telling the truth about Palmdale, but refuse to accept the truth (from exactly the same source) about the DVDs? If you're trying to establish that I have poor credibility, then you can't trust what I've said about Palmdale, et cetera, either. You can't have it both ways, Tony: either I'm not a credible source or I am; you can't pick and choose which times I'm credible for your own purposes.
Now, I have answered your questions. Repeatedly. Are you prepared to answer mine?
[deleted]
Ready for your five questions?
1. Have you ever worked on or for a fan film?
2. Were you aware they were violating the owner's copyright at the time?
3. Have you ever seen a fan film of a show that was NOT in violation of the owner's copyright?
4. Have you ever made a claim about Hidden Frontier that you KNEW was factually untrue?
5. In the ten years you've been attacking Hidden Frontier and its supporters, what have you accomplished?
[deleted]
So. Having demanded and received answers to your questions, you now refuse to answer mine. You imply that if I put it in a separate thread, you'll actually answer them, after hijacking this thread for your own purposes.
Okay. I'll start another thread, and you answer the questions. Deal?
[deleted]
We have judged - unfortunately for you, we've found that you are the thread hijacker, a liar, and a troll. We've clarified this for you in many ways, in many threads. I'm sorry that your intelligence level is so low that you still can't grasp this, Cuddles...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You've proven nothing, Tony, except that you're unstable, mentally challenged, and a serial liar. That, my unbalanced "friend", has been proven time and time again. For real.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, Thalek has admitted, and it has been proven any times over, that you are a lying troll. Thank you for verifying that, Cuddles.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
"MANY times proven." True. You got caught re-writing someone's review to make it look like they were trashing Hidden Frontier. Three times, as I recall. Links to the original articles were provided so people could compare the real versions with the doctored versions.
You get asked direct questions that you evade under a wide variety excuses. More times than I can recall.
You call others childish names while demanding that they not do the same. More times than I recall.
You frequently argue by attacking the person instead of their statement. As you know, that's called an ad hominem attack. Also more times than I recall.
You demand that others not make ad hominem attacks even while you're making them. That demand, like the one about not using childish name-calling, is in your signature. That makes it pretty much every post.
You complain about Hidden Frontier's copyright piracy, and then go and steal other people's articles without even the decency of giving them credit for the article. Also more times than I can recall.
I've admitted when I was wrong in public several times. You, never. Despite the fact that you've been wrong more times than I have.
So yes, I'd have to agree with you, it's been many times proven that you are both a liar and a hypocrite. The best part is, you make it so easy to do; we don't even have to break a sweat to do it. Sometimes, you even prove it for us so we don't have to do anything.
[deleted]
I dunno: is it still a personal attack when it's true?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Okay, as you did not protest, I shall assume that my telling the truth about you does not constitute a personal attack on you. Thank you for the clarification.
share[deleted]
"Sorry, that's called a lie by ommission."
Well, then, why don't YOU tell us the truth, instead of evading?
"I don't have time to correct the numerous lies you post in the Internet."
Now that's bull and you know it, Tony. You certainly have enough time to make your posts against us. And for all that you boast about having a life, you certainly make a lot of posts here.
"But you sure spend alot of time making personal comments about me. Infatuated or love?"
Neither. You have no qualities admirable enough to love, as near as I can tell. Further, I'm as hetero as you are. [frowning] Actually, considering that you have had this obsession with me for ten years now, perhaps that is an invalid assumption on my part. They say that love turns easily to hate; perhaps that explains your actions.
However, what about all of your personal comments about me? You even include one in that post: "Unlike you, I have a life".
The fact of the matter is, Tony, you're a particularly difficult person to deal with. You are quick to take offense, you refuse to admit when you're wrong, you lie about others and claim that everything said about you is a lie whether it is or not. You have flagrant double standards where it regards honesty, copyright violation, and behavior. There is no proof in the world strong enough to suit you if it happens to disagree with your pet theories, but you take the flimsiest of things as rock-solid "proof" of your theories about others. You publish manifestos of what constitutes trollish behaviors, and then equally publicly demonstrate the very same behaviors, seemingly unconscious of the of the double-standard shown.
You deny almost everything, and what you cannot or will not deny, you evade, then put an onus on every speculation that you refuse to either confirm or deny. You place the burden of proof upon others, then refuse to accept that proof when it is given. When proof is demanded of you, you claim that you don't have the time or the energy or the desire to provide it, claiming it's not your responsibility to provide proof for your statements, but rather it's the duty of your questioners. Yet you do not show the same courtesy to others. Indeed, courtesy of almost any sort is another of your lacks, unless you are wooing someone who appears to be neutral.
You've held a childish vendetta for ten years now, yet refuse to explain to any of its victims just what it is you hold against them. Every time you've refused a request to end the vendetta, you've proven that you alone control it, and that you alone maintain it.
You judge others and then grant yourself the right to punish them, although neither the law nor any religious philosophy supports that. Certain the Christian God explicitly states that "an eye for an eye" is specifically and solely His right, not any human's. There's also the line about being over-anxious about the dust mote in someone else's eye while ignoring the beam in your own. But again, you never explain just what it is that you are punishing; certainly, you have yet to state that we're guilty of any crime that you do not regularly commit.
I don't know what you want out of life, because that is yet another question you consistently evade, but all I can say is that unless you're getting what you want out of life now, you are definitely not going about getting it in the right way at all. You deliberately antagonize anyone who disagrees with you, then excuse yourself by saying you aren't being deliberately cruel, just "factual".
And like a three year old child, when someone finally takes the high ground and ignores you, you deliberately kick them in the shins until they respond again. Clearly, peace has never been your goal.
What IS your goal, Tony? What do you hope to gain? What motivates your viciousness to others? What justifies all the lying you do? What is it that soothes your conscience so that you can continue to ignore every wrong you do to others? Just what is this "right" that you're trying to construct out of multiple wrongs?
[deleted]
So, let's give you some more questions to evade,Tony.
What would it take to get you to stop this endless harassment? Bribes? Me signing a statement that everything you've said is, in "reality", the truth? You want me to stop defending myself or my friends against your calumnies? You want me to call you a great actor, and actively promote all the movies you've starred in?
What, if anything, would get you to stop behaving in the way that upsets you so much when you claim others are doing it? What, in short, would get you to end your vicious vendetta and your trolling our sites?
Is there anything? Or do you enjoy being a vicious bastard so much that you'll never end it?
[deleted]
How well I know. But as long as people ask him reasonable questions and he evades or disparages them, he continues to smash his own image of being reasonable. It's a no-lose scenario for me: if he answers, it might be something I can actually do in good conscience. And if he does not, he damages his credibility for the image he wishes to project. And of course, if he answers and the demand is unreasonable, that also affects his credibility as a reasonable man.
share[deleted]
"Name calling, demonizing your enemies, proclaiming innocence, and denying that such behavior has dangerous consequences - you have briefly defined how people become dangerous. People who disagree with you are not necessarily evil or less human than you."
I agree with you 100% on this. Which is why it has frustrated me so much over the last ten years of your attacks: How is it that you know that it is wrong, yet you persist in doing what you already know is wrong?
"You might even be wrong about your personal attacks."
I suppose it's possible that some of the remarks I've made in self-defense might be mistaken.
However, there remain a few facts which you have never denied. One of those facts is that you've been at this for ten years now. One of those facts is that you got caught---three times---stealing other people's articles and re-writing them to say what YOU wanted them to say. Links were provided so that others could verify what you'd done. One of those facts is that despite claiming to be a champion of the copyrights of others, you have routinely copied entire articles from other people and republished them without even the courtesy of acknowledging the original author. (That particular one is one of the few crimes you've actually acknowledged, boasting that the principle of "Fair Usage" gave you the right. Unfortunately, Fair Usage articles repeatedly state that only EXCERPTS of an article are so-covered.)
Another fact is that any time a reputable publication writes favorably about us, you denounce it as lies. At the same time, anything negative about us, even if it came from the exact same source, is accepted as Gospel by you.
Yet another fact is that in your profile, you proclaim yourself to be "a nice guy". Given that you routinely attack me over irrelevancies and once cheerfully suggested I drink liquid Drano, that's a hard statement to support.
"LOL... simple haters...."
Arguing with labels is so easy, isn't it? You can pretend that labeling us actually presents an argument and defense and explanation, when in fact, it does none of that. All it really does is demonize us, something you claim we shouldn't do.
"Thanks for proving my point..."
Actually, you've come far closer to proving mine than I have come to proving yours. MY point is that your sole purpose here is harassment, pure and simplistic. You do this by making statements that are provably lies, by concentrating on irrelevancies and trivia, thread high-jacking (this very thread attests to that), and evading any question at all while continuing to demand answers to your own questions.
"Name calling, demonizing your enemies, proclaiming innocence, and denying that such behavior has dangerous consequences - you have briefly defined how people become dangerous. People who disagree with you are not necessarily evil or less human than you."
Already dealt with in a previous post: these are all activities you routinely engage in. I will point out that proclaiming my innocence is very likely something I would also do if I were actually innocent.
"Your conclusions on my motivations are miles off."
Perhaps, but that's your fault, not mine. You've been repeatedly asked why you do this, and you remain silent. You've been repeatedly asked what would it take to get you to stop, and you've remained silent. You've been repeatedly asked what gives you the right to do the very same things you warn others against doing, and you've remained silent. You've been repeatedly asked why you will not apologize when you're repeatedly caught doing something that you yourself claim is wrong, and you've remained silent.
So, your motivations are fair game for speculation, just as they would in the political arena or in a college debate. My motivations have been repeatedly stated: self-defense from unwarranted attacks, attacks you initiated with no obvious motive at all ten years ago and have continued to make to this very day. See? That wasn't very hard.
It's pretty clear that you are aware that if you gave an honest answer about your motivations, it would cast you in an even worse light, if that's still possible. And due to a lack of imagination, you have not come up with a plausible lie, so you try to minimize the damage by remaining silent. Unfortunately for you, that automatically grants anyone the right to speculate about that which you refuse to tell us. You're very big on the rights granted under the First Amendment----when they support what you're doing, that is. You'll just have to live with the fact that we're exercising our rights under the First Amendment as well.
I doubt that it could even be called libel as 1) It's clearly labeled speculation and 2) You have repeatedly refused to correct our allegedly mistaken speculations beyond simple negation.
[deleted]
Nice evasion.
share[deleted]
Except you haven't caught on to the fact that you have no credibility anymore - being a proven liar will do that...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
You cut and pasted that response in another thread, too.
I'll use the same response here that I did there: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0312964/board/thread/138114926?d=147324432&; amp; amp;p=5#147324432
Edited to add:
I don't know if anyone else will conclude this article explains our respective behaviors or not. But I am certain that they will find it educational: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
The future of on-line productions seems to have brightened a bit, because Joss Wheedon of Buffy and Firefly fame, has won an Emmy for his low-budget but very entertaining "Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog".
(Here's the article: http://scifiwire.com/2009/09/dr-horrible-wins-first-em.php)
Interestingly enough, this is Mr. Wheedon's first Emmy win. (He was previously nominated for a Buffy episode he'd written.)
I'm certain the entire on-line production community congratulates Mr. Wheedon on his win.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[shaking head and sighing]
He keeps claiming I'm jealous of him, but never once has he said what he's done that I (or anyone else) would ever be jealous of.
I can only assume that the claim of jealousy is wishful thinking.
[deleted]
See what I mean? He wants me to believe that he's done something to be jealous of (well, other than his carpentry skills, which I have admitted to envying more than once), but he never tells anyone what we're allegedly jealous of.
My guess is that it's more B.S. intended far more to get a rise out of someone than it's intended to be true. Sort of like when he accuses me of having a homosexual fixation on him. (It does get a bit of a reaction from me because I can't imagine that if I were gay, my taste in men would be that bad.)
I also find it ironic that he razzes me about my treatment for depression, but refuses to get his own mental health issues treated. I guess that makes me a better man: I understood I had a problem and dealt with it instead of pretending it didn't exist. Again, that means there's nothing significant about him worth being jealous over.
[deleted]
.
I have the solution to all of your problems Tony:
www.scientology.org
-- MaxIsBack
Visit: http://ExScientologyKids.com
.
[deleted]
Actually, you have not answered the question. But now in addition to "what would I possibly be jealous of", we can add, "What would I possibly be afraid of?".
I'd like to hear the jealousy question answered first, though.
[deleted]
Pathetic response, Cuddles - but par for the course for you...
Go crawl back into your hole with Jim Gilcrist, why don't you?
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
Okay, I looked at the post you mentioned. It's your post. It says "J E A L O U S Y", but it doesn't say what I'm allegedly jealous of. Because you have not gone back and edited it, as you sometimes do with your posts, it has no more information than it had before, and the informational content of that post is precisely zero.
And except for your ability to swing a hammer without hurting yourself, you've never accomplished anything that I can think of that I might be jealous of. So, I'll have to stick with my earlier statement: you've told a lie solely in the hopes that it will stir things up, which it seems to have. Because you have done nothing, met no one, said nothing, that I would ever be feel a need to be jealous over. Now, it's possible that you've done things, or met people, or said something that you would like me to be jealous about, but until you tell me what they supposedly are, no one here will ever know.
But do feel free to post in great detail what it is that you think I'm jealous about. Or not, as you choose. For you, it's a no-win situation: if you don't post, it just affirms that you've got nothing, regardless of what excuse you use for not posting. And if you do post, it'll give me another chance to laugh at you and the absurdities you want people to believe.
Or you can yell "gotcha!" instead of actually responding, which will be more proof for me to send to the administrators that you are deliberately keeping your childish vendetta alive. Not because it accomplishes anything useful, not because you have anything true to say, but solely because it pleases you to be childishly hateful to people who have done nothing to harm you except defend themselves from you.
[deleted]
As you can see, he has nothing but implications. You can't refute a mere implication, because then your opponent can claim "That's not what I said; you're just putting words in my mouth" no matter what you say.
He claims I have no life, but he's devoted the last ten years of HIS life to telling you so, and harassing me.
He harps on my illnesses, which he seems to think are somehow my fault, or perhaps even falsified, but will not seek treatment for his own severe illness.
He claims that I am jealous of him, and yet I am happy, have a good woman and good friends in my life, an acting hobby I enjoy, and my physical health is good. I don't know what he has, but all I see here is a bitter and angry troll who attacks others who never harmed him except in self-defense.
I want the vendetta he started to end. He wants to maintain it and has said as much. He admits that this vendetta of his entertains him, and that appears to be its only purpose.
I don't want the life he has. I don't want the life he doesn't have, but desperately wishes he had, either. I ask again, what's there for ME to be jealous about?
[deleted]
As opposed to an out-of-work "actor" who can't get credited in a film to save his life? As opposed to someone who pals around with scum like Jim Gilchrist and Shawna Forde? As opposed to someone who's wasted more than a decade on a pointless vendetta that has, to date, brought absolutely NO ONE over to its side?
How far has your hatred gotten you, Cuddles? Looks like nothing more than a deeper hole, if you ask me...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
.
Anthony Genovese/Oscar-35/ForPike said:
"More intellectually passive aggressive dishonest 'spin' post of nattering several nonsensical paragraphs. I pity you that you can't follow your own previous posts even if their smear content was AdM deleted, your sad attempt at a personal smear about what I do for a living."
"Victim Whiting has no life". So, is that finally an acknowledgment that you've been victimizing me, Tony? And why is it so important to you whether I have a life or not? And if I have no life, as you say, why is it up to you to make it worse with your constant harassment? Shouldn't you be trying to help me instead of attacking me?
share[deleted]
So, exactly what is YOUR definition of "victim" which somehow excludes me being attacked by a stalking troll?
Shall I provide a dictionary link to get you started, so you can claim the dictionary has it all wrong again?
[deleted]
You're the one who switched the topic to personal attacks on me, including the claim that somehow, despite the abuse you heap upon me, I am somehow NOT a victim.
Here's a link to a dictionary: http://m-w.com/dictionary/victim
Here are the definitions it states:
1. "one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent"
2. "one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions"
3. "one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment"
While one could consider me a victim of depression, I consider it something I simply have to live with and work around as best I can. However, given your frequent, baseless, and completely unwarranted attacks upon me, it is quite clear that I am being victimized by you.
I would be very interested in seeing what evasion you will come up with this time for ignoring this. Will it be the "Off-topic again" evasion? Will it be the "The dictionary doesn't know what it's talking about" evasion? How about the "That doesn't apply to your situation but I refuse to explain why" evasion? How about the "It is beneath me to explain" or the "It's so obvious I don't need to explain" evasions? Or will you come up with something new?
[deleted]
This appears to be both the "Off-topic again" evasion and the "That doesn't apply to your situation but I refuse to explain why" evasion.
Thank you for very carefully not explaining your position.
[deleted]
No, that's just the pitiful sound you make echoing back from under your bridge, Troll Boy...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
GEEEAAWWWD. Shut up for *beep* sake. All of you need to find a job, get laid, or throw yourself off the nearest bridge. I prefer the last one. I'm even willing to drive you all to the bridge myself. You guys act like your 12 y/o.
share[deleted]
I read recently that people have a moral obligation to be happy, because it is the unhappy people who cause so many ills of the world.
That being the case, it must be particularly repugnant to the Morality Police to encounter someone whose seemingly sole purpose in life is to make others unhappy.
[deleted]
You never have explained how I make you unhappy, Tony.
As to how you make others unhappy, well, that's obvious to anyone who reads a thread you're in. And thanks to you, I've never had to "play" the victim at all. I never was a victim before, until you came along.
So, why don't you stop your senseless vendetta? You've never explained that, either.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
What do you mean he knows nothing first hand?
He's seen what you posted here; that's certainly first-hand. He knows that the article you linked to and pasted here was written by you; he certainly knows that first-hand.
Unless you can prove that the press articles are phony, you are libeling the reporters who wrote them. The people who wrote about us work for Variety, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and Good Morning America, as well as these smaller papers who have written about us. You go on a great deal about how being paid for a job makes one a professional, and how being a professional somehow automatically confers upon one professional standards and ethics. Why is it that don't you extend that attitude to professional journalists as well as actors?
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's hard to have respect for professionals when you set yourself up as a shining example of them. Stalking off the set of Hidden Frontier in "Two Hours" was not the mark of a true professional.
Let's see now. You spent years reporting a rumor that Rob pointed a handgun at someone, and never once bothered to check your facts. Is that why you think professional reporters would never check their facts, either?
So far, your only "proof" that they were lied to is that they said something nice about us. You hate us, therefore nothing good about us can possibly be true-----in your OPINION. Your opinion, however, is not a verifiable fact.
"I realy [sic] don't know why you spend your time personally attacking me when I talk about non-personal topics . . ." Ah. So, you've never told me that I'm a sick individual who needs to get a life. You've never told me that I need to get back on my medications. You've never accused me of defrauding Social Security. You mean THOSE non-personal topics?
"I have my views and you have yours . . ." Unfortunately, you keep spouting your views as if they were facts and not opinions, you keep quoting only yourself on other sites to support those contentions instead of third parties, and you lack all proof for your allegations.
Therefore, you continue to insist that no one could possibly have a good opinion of us unless they were lied to. You continue to insist that "many" people hate us, but cannot seem to actually produce ANY, despite having the resources of the entire Internet at your beck and call.
Look at it this way, if you can. Suppose I went around making posts that your production company went around cheating actors, crew members and writers of agreed-upon rights, that "many" people found your business practices and your productions utterly reprehensible and without merit, that any positive press about you could only be the product of foolish dupes or bribery, that you had followed me into your own discussion threads and were therefore stalking me, and that you had a history of defrauding the IRS.
Now suppose that the only proof I had of these accusations were quotations of myself on other websites, or that I stole reviews about other topics entirely from here on IMDB and rewrote them to say what I wanted them to say about you. Or that I didn't need to provide any proof because "everyone" knows this, so no proof is needed.
That is exactly what you've done to us for ten years now. You've made up stories about us, you've supplied no verifiable proof at all, you've promulgated a hate-filled vendetta against us for years, and you have the temerity to complain that you're receiving opposition? That despite being repeatedly caught lying, you are still the only one in the discussion with any intelligence or integrity? That anyone who agrees with me must, as a matter of course, be a blind fool who has been lied to?
That whole "you have your view and I have mine" bit has one underlying premise that you utterly reject. That premise is that BOTH sides might have some actual merit to them, that they might be equal in merit. It does NOT mean that because your opinion is different than mine, I am supposed to be silent, as you imply. It does not mean that when you say something verifiably false, that I cannot protest, and provide proof.
Unfortunately, as I said, you utterly reject that premise. Your idea of "let's leave it at that" appears to be, "Stop opposing me and be silent." As long as you live in a black and white world where nothing good can ever be said about us without being false, I will oppose you, because it simply isn't true.
[deleted]
"I realy don't know why you spend your time personally attacking me when I talk about non-personal topics . . ."
"I suggest that you immediately see your current mental health professional and take up your delusions with her."
Thank you for demonstrating that you make plenty of personal attacks yourself while still proclaiming yourself utterly innocent of any personal attacks at all. Once again, you have demonstrated that you are either a liar, or have a remarkably flexible memory about your activities.
I particularly like your timeliness in making your demonstration, while my comment is still fresh in everyone's minds.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't think he CAN stop lying about us. He has conceived some sort of personal grudge against us, and it's purely emotional now. He may claim it's about copyright, or honesty, or quality, or denying homosexuals their rights as human beings, but it's not. It's not about REASON at all. It's about hate, pure, and very, very simple, and any club he can find to hit us with will suit him, whether it's actually appropriate or not.
You've seen how he makes comments to the effect that he's NEVER made any personal attacks on me, and in the next breath tells me to take my meds and see my shrink. Children do this when they say, "Mommy, he hit me!" without mentioning that they hit their victim first. Don't ever expect Tony to be honest enough to say "Mommy, he hit me back!"
Remember all of his complaints about copyright usage by fan films, and then he copied entire articles by someone else and claimed "Fair usage"? Remember that when he stole those articles, he never even bothered to identify the author? Or better still, remember the times when he stole someone's article and then re-wrote it until it said what HE wanted it to say?
This is not a man who can be honest with himself, let alone anyone else. His idea of "live and let live" will always be "Shut up, and I'll let you live".
He may talk about the "really true factual facts that are truly real and factual" about Hidden Frontier, but he's not after facts. He's after revenge for something that probably didn't happen at all, or would entirely unimportant to an adult. But we'll never know, because he'll never be honest enough to tell us what it is.
[deleted]
"Not much one cares to say in response to this kind of irrational hate thinking."
Coming from you and your ten year vendetta against us, Tony, this statement has enough irony to make an asteroid.
[deleted]
My earlier comment: "You've seen how he makes comments to the effect that he's NEVER made any personal attacks on me, and in the next breath tells me to take my meds and see my shrink."
Do you actually DENY making such personal attacks on me?
[deleted]
So, does that long post mean that you deny personally attacking me, or not? It really doesn't address the question, you know.
share[deleted]
"just nadder [sic] on and on....."
Let the record show that Mr. Genovese has entered a plea of nolo contendre, in which he neither admits guilt, nor denies it.
[deleted]
"You're here to entertain us."
I'm here for my own reasons. If they happen to meet with your approval, that's a happy coincidence, but pleasing you has never been a requirement of mine.
[deleted]
And therein lies the important difference between us, Tony: I set aside today to make myself a fool. Ten years ago, you set aside the rest of your life to be a fool, attacking people who don't deserve it. I hope it's been worth the time and energy to you.
share[deleted]
Me, pompous? I have a self-styled professional who wouldn't know professional behavior if it bit him on the nose who has been claiming to star in films he barely appears in, be friends with actors who don't remember him, and harasses innocent people for a decade at a time, and I'm pompous?
You're right in one thing, though: I have no idea why you've been doing it. That's because whenever anyone asks you why you're harassing people, you evade the question and claim they've been stalking YOU.
You have claimed, more than once, that I'm jealous of you, although this too is something about which I have no idea. Although I see now that you've been much more successful at your life's work for the last ten years than I have. I do wonder, though, why you chose being an Internet troll as your life's work. Wasn't your stand-in work and your carpentry work fulfilling enough?
"cause [sic] you're sadly you." And that is the epitome of the ad hominem attack: "you cannot possibly be right because you're you." But are you the one who demands that no one perform ad hominem attacks? Ah. That's right, I remember now: you only demand that no one ELSE commit such an attack.
[deleted]