I know it's kinda short notice, but several members of Hidden Frontier Productions will be the media Guests of Honor at RadCon in Pasco, Washington.
Held over the weekend of February 13th through the 15th, 2009, this is RadCon's fifth time out of the gate.
Star Fleet International will be holding an event "next door", so there's bound to be some cross-over in attendance.
Feel free to drop in and visit!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It must have been dreadfully boring: it took you a bit over five months to get around to denouncing our presence there.
I'm glad that we had a better time.
[deleted]
What false impression did I allegedly leave this time?
I said we were guests at RadCon. We were. I said we had a good time. We did. I never said that RadCon was a major convention, like a WorldCon. I never said attendance was huge. So, just what false impression did I allegedly leave?
As for the impression that you're trying to give that you've been too busy working to spend attacking us for the last five months, how is it that you've been managing to attack us elsewhere on IMDB for the last five months if you've actually been too busy?
Frankly, I wish that you actually had been too busy to attack us. You're much more pleasant when you're not around.
And your implication that the only one around here who has a life is you keeps getting contradicted by the evidence of the last decade. For ten years now, the oh-so-busy and oh-so-important Big Man, Tony Genovese, has spent much of his spare time attacking a fan film group. What did we ever do to deserve such attacks? Literally nothing: when a Star Trek club was kicking you out, most of us stood around and did nothing. We didn't attack you, we didn't jump onto either side, we did nothing. And because we didn't give you the support that YOU felt you deserved (a nearly unique viewpoint, from what I've been able to tell over the last ten years), you've been attacking us.
Well, I have to assume that's the actual reason, as you refuse to tell anyone what it is that we did to earn your self-righteous wrath. You'll accuse us of putting words in your mouth, or maybe making up explanations, but despite repeated requests for you to explain yourself, you never have. Maybe you just feel that you have the right to attack anyone you wish, without actually needing a valid reason to justify it. Even Bush at least made up a lie before attacking Iraq; you've never bothered to do that much.
I'm aware of the fact that you don't think we've accomplished anything. I'm aware of the fact that you don't think we have anything to be proud of, despite the considerable written and video-taped evidence to the contrary.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you completely lack both the power and the authority to punish us. You cannot make us do what you feel we ought to do (whatever the Hell that is), and you cannot make us feel the way you wish we would feel. Whatever crime it is you feel you're punishing us for, it's not working, at least partly because you've never told anyone what it is. (And don't give me the copyright b.s. again, because you were attacking us as individuals for at least a year before you even mentioned the word "copyright".)
You cannot punish us for the crime of failing to love you, Tony, especially as you forced us to hate you. And there is no other crime you can punish us for, either. So please, leave your ancestry behind you, and stop this senseless, pointless, and worst of all, useless personal vendetta of yours.
[deleted]
Actually, every now and then, it just pisses me off that a grown man has spent ten years of his life attacking me for something I didn't do. And all for something as unimportant to most grownups as a Star Trek club.
And the forums are here to be used, not abused. You have never once contributed anything to these forums except for abuse.
[deleted]
To the extent that you intend to inflict your life on me, it is my business. And I really don't understand how your constant attacks on me somehow make me a megalomaniac. Would you care to explain the reasoning you used by which you turn the victim into the megalomaniac?
I never claimed to be a prop maker. As to how anyone can represent themselves as something they've never been paid for, well, it's the doing that is the proving. You don't have to be paid to be an artist. You don't have to be paid to be a carpenter. You don't have to be paid to be an actor. You only have to be paid for it if you intend to make a living at it. (Except for being an actor, of course. Even SAG admits that more than 99% of their paid actors cannot actually make a living wage at it.)
So, do you ever intend to explain to ANYone just what it is I did to you that actually justifies a decade of harassment on your part? Or is the vendetta itself supposed to be public, but your reasons for carrying it on are too personal to reveal?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Union actors and professional production techs earn a living with their professional work, amatuers fan video techs give their work away cause no one will pay them for it."
According to the Screen Actors' Guild itself, 99% of all of its members canNOT earn a living from their acting. This directly contradicts your claim.
And the b.s. about amateurs having to give away their work because their quality is insufficient to get paid is just that: b.s. You ARE aware, are you not, that the root of "amateur" is "amor", that is, something done for the love of doing it? It has NOTHING to do with quality, regardless of what you would like to be true.
Amateurs are people who do something for love that others do for pay, that's the long and the short of it. Quality is entirely a separate issue.
Oh, and in your opinion, why did Roddenberry choose not to keep his promise to have gays on his show? Now that you "see why" he chose not to keep a promise, what is it you claim to see?
(Edited to add a question.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's interesting: after the moderators removed his post, he re-sent it to me in private email, despite the fact that allegedly, it is aimed at a wider audience and not me. I wonder why he felt that I needed to see what he was saying to someone else.
I too, pointed out that he had not had a gun held to his head, that he himself had chosen to act as he had.
"I had never been accused of doing anything remotely dishonest in my life before . . ."
An interesting statement. It either means that he had never been accused of such dishonesty before he started the vendetta ten years ago, or it is a flat-out lie.
If he is claiming that he'd never been accused of dishonesty before he started his vendetta, it is an implicit admission that he has done things that might get himself accused for the last ten years. In which case, he can choose to improve his image by no longer doing such things.
If he is claiming that he's never been accused of dishonesty before my recent post, that is simply a lie. He has received many such accusations over the last ten years, and many of those accusations have been actually proven. (Not only has he reposted the material of other people without asking their permission or giving attribution to the original authors, at least three times, he edited the material to substantially change its meaning and to falsify bad reviews of our works. Links to the originals have been posted, clearly showing what he stole and how he rewrote it.)
When he was trying to pass off one rumor in particular (the falsehood that Rob Caves had pointed a gun at Jason Munoz when Rob wasn't even in the room at the time), he later admitted that he had never actually checked his facts before publishing the rumor.
So, claiming that he'd never been accused of dishonesty before is a statement that requires clarification.
Which did you mean, Tony? That you have never before been accused of dishonest doings at all? Or that you had never been accused until about ten years ago, when you started these attacks?
[deleted]
There you go, Tony. There's an example of the maturity you're trying to instill in everyone.
share[deleted]
I had never been accused of doing anything remotely dishonest in my life beforeActually, this is completely false. I and others here have shown repeatedly (with clear proof) that you are a plagiarist and a liar. You have been shown repeatedly (with clear proof) to have lifted reviews from other films and rewritten them to slander Hidden Frontier. You have had multiple reviews that you have posted for several films removed for lifting them from other sources - again, removed with clear proof. You scream and rave about how despicable your targets are, yet you do SO much worse than they do on a daily basis.
[deleted]
Why is it that only you are allowed to have opinions? Or rather, why are you the only one whose opinions may not be discussed and evaluated as anyone else's may be?
You are still trying to sell the fallacy that "paid = quality" and "unpaid = bad". Neither of those statements are automatically true. Anyone who has ever bought a bad book, seen a bad movie, had shoddily done repairs, bought a "lemon" car, purchased a poorly-built house or any of the other myriad examples of paying money and receiving crap is aware of this. And a person's membership in a union has nothing to do with that person's competence, quality, or professionalism and everything to do with their ability to pay union dues.
You have also seen enough community theatre, amateur artwork in art galleries, leather-crafting/weaving/sewing/armor-making in the SCA, amateur costumes at conventions, singing, and so forth to know that there are many talented amateurs out there, doing what they do not for the money, but for the sheer joy of it. (Susan Boyle is one such example in recent news.) Your blanket statement that amateurs have to give away their work because of the poor quality is not merely false, but an insult to all of your fellow amateurs who have made something skillfully without expecting to be paid compensation for it.
Copyright is also a dead issue. You have complained to Paramount many times. They've ignored you. We've had fairly extensive media coverage, so they are not ignorant of our existence, but they ignore us also. If Paramount does not care about our efforts, then it really doesn't matter if you do, because YOU are not the copyright holder. And neither the FBI nor Interpol is likely to be overly concerned if you file charges if Paramount, the copyright holder, chooses not to.
"I can see now why GRoddenberry decided not to use any of it's political agendas like the homosexual one in this fan video."
Roddenberry died before Hidden Frontier was ever created, so he had no opportunity to form an opinion of our alleged political agenda. And it has been documented several times that he did intend to add a homosexual character as a regular to the show, but was too ill to force it past upper management.
But since you claim to see why Roddenberry wasn't going to keep his promise, perhaps you can explain it to the rest of us who obviously do not. Exactly why do you feel that he was right to keep gay characters off the screen? What is wrong with them, that they should never be included in any Star Trek of any form, including fan-made?
Um, who was the one who first posted the unprovoked attack after five months in the first place? Especially considering that you did not even go the convention in question! Trust me, Cuddles, we know the truth...
Just one more lie from someone with a severe problem with the truth...
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
What an utterly childish response, Cuddles. Unfortunately, you've shown yourself time and time again to be incapable of actual mature discussion - as actual astute readers have already surmised.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
". . . trollish poster is trying to copy my arguement tact [sic] . . ."
Do I understand you correctly, Tony? That one of your complaints is that your questioners are using the same tactics you are? Are you trying to say that only you have the right to use certain tactics?
"Hardly a new inovative way of discussing this issue, maturely. Just more of his piracy/copying of my very first 'mode' of my discussion towards the opposing side in this academic issue."
Hmm, yes it very much sounds like you're complaining that someone is using the same methods you are. There are only so many valid ways of discussing an issue, and you certainly don't have a monopoly on their use.
Indeed, I don't know what you're complaining about. You've actually used many tactics I would never use. I would never re-post someone's work without their permission, nor would I fail to give attribution to the original author. I would also provide a link so that people could see that I had quoted the author accurately. And I certainly wouldn't rewrite an article so that it now said something entirely different from what it had originally.
I also wouldn't use the argument that only people who get paid know what they're talking about. And I certainly wouldn't use the argument that paying money guarantees quality.
Nor would I make statements like "ALL intelligent people believe as I do" because first, I don't know what ALL intelligent people believe, although I do know what several intelligent people believe. I also wouldn't use such a statement because of the subtext, which implies that anyone who doesn't agree with those beliefs must be unintelligent. Both of those are logical fallacies and therefore not usable in an honest debate.
Another limitation that I have willingly accepted is that I have studied something of logic and debate, and therefore I am less inclined to stray outside the rules of formal debate.
Seeing as how you have access to so many techniques that I do not and will not use, surely you can share a few techniques that I am willing to use?
[deleted]
You ARE aware that your suggestion works both ways?
If you find our existence so offensive, you really don't have to post here, or read the posts made by others here.
The fact is, you've decided that we've done something we have to be punished for, and you've appointed yourself the executioner. Fortunately, we have nothing you can take away, and there is nothing you can legally do to harm us.
So, have we digressed enough here, so we can now get back to the actual topic, which was our guest appearance at RadCon?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Let's see now. I'm a member of Hidden Frontier Productions, but I'm not allowed to be in the Hidden Frontier board because it somehow constitutes stalking you? I'm supposed to ignore all the nasty and false statements you make here, but you're not required to ignore me or to stop making false statements?
Whatever happened to equal rights? Why do I somehow have fewer rights than you do?
Looks like Cuddles has a problem with the truth, again... He claims that Thalek showed up here after he had been active here for months... unfortunately, a simple quick look at both profiles shows that Thalek registered his account in August 1999, while Cuddles didn't show up until January 2000...
Cuddles Genovese - your friendly neighborhood serial liar!
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
You mean like the time I posted a three sentence announcement that we had won an award, and you claimed I was spinning the event into something more positive than it really was?
shareTwist, huh? "You stalked me & came here and posted long after I was active here for months." You quite clearly are claiming that you were on these IMDB boards first. This is a lie, as a simple quick look at both of your profiles shows that Thalek registered his account in August 1999, while you didn't show up until January 2000...
The only dishonest person here, Cuddles, intellectually or otherwise, is you. It's a simple, clear, and undeniable fact. Sorry you don't like having that shown again and again, but hey, if you actually tried posting something truthful once in a while, people might actually treat you with a little respect - instead, you're the Orly Taitz of Star Trek fanfilms.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
[deleted]
Prove it: what date DID you sign up for your Oscar35 account?
shareSorry yourself, Cuddles. You've just shown yourself to be either blind, stupid, and/or a pathological liar. My bet's on all three.
From your profile (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0092536/boards/profile/) - Registered Sun Jan 2 2000
From Thalek's profile (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0422874/boards/profile/) - Registered Sat Aug 21 1999
So - in what universe does 2000 come before 1999? You lose - again.
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
Red Dwarf - Season Three - Episode One - Backwards.
Sorry guys - temptation set in.
[deleted]
Afraid the only one missing the point in this thread is you, Cuddles... oh, and by the way, since you didn't start this thread and only showed up to troll months later, that makes you the stalker... howz dem apples, trollboy?
'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com
We're not actually missing the point; it seems to me that we've refuted your claims, an entirely different matter.
I've been here longer, so I couldn't have "followed" you anywhere. I belong here because I'm actually part of the cast and crew, so I cannot stalk you by participating here.
If you had another point to make, perhaps you want to try again? Or you could always use the Ignore button if you don't like Hidden Frontier's continued existence.
[deleted]