Toonie
07-08-2002, 12:32 PM
yes, certainly not liking the Powerpuff Girls is a detestable crime for which I should be ashamed, but did I really deserve to be banned from the forum for it?
yesterday, with my Treehouse account, I engaged in a debate with a moderator and a few others about the PPG movie. that thread is here:
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40028
in the middle of that debate, I found myself banned from the forums and limited to private messages. there was no warning and no explanation as to why I'd been banned. when I try to make a public post with my Treehouse account, I get a message which says I've been restricted to making 10 posts a day (although it's been a day since I was banned and I still haven't been able to make any posts).
if you look at the thread, "Roger Ebert Compares The PPG Movie to Sept 11," you will see that I am not engaging in childish name-calling, and I am not being any more curt or smug than is the moderator I'm having the exchange with, Matt Wilson. in fact, the most childish response comes from the moderator, CartoonFridays, at the end of the thread where he calls me boring and says I have a big mouth. even if what he says is true, and even if the thread deserved to be closed, do I really deserve to be banned from the forum simply for having an opinion which is contrary to the opinion of the moderators?
at the very least I would like to know the reason that I was banned so that I don't make that same mistake again, here or on other forums. what was the rule I violated and was unaware of?
- do not have an opinion which is contrary to the opinions of the moderators
- do not state on this forum that you do not like the Powerpuff Girls
please do not turn this into the type of forum which censors individuals who do not conform to the status quo. to do so is fascistic, cowardly, undemocratic, childish, and an abuse of power.
below is the response to Matt Wilson's post #44 in the Roger Ebert thread which I was banned from making:
BEGIN___________________________________________
Originally posted by Matt Wilson
No, you claimed that the show is childish, that it is targetted at little girls, that all they do is form rainbows, and that any male viewer that watches it is "less manly".
All of these claims you have made are unsubstantiated.
wrong, wrong, wrong
- the "claim" that the show is childish is an opinion. it does not have to be substantiated anymore than saying a meal is too salty needs to be substantiated.
- cute things like pokemon, PPG, and Smurfs are targetted to girls, because girls like cute things more than boys do. that's not to say that the show is not targetted to boys at all. there are certainly elements in the show that appeal to boys more.
- I didn't say that ALL THEY DO is make rainbows, but doing cute girlie things is a dominating aspect of the show. even the monsters and villians are cute and huggable, for gods sake
- and please show me the post from which you quote me saying someone is "less manly" for watching PPG. I suspect that this is a complete fabrication on your part, since I do not hold this opinion.
Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Um, you yet again ignored my other points. Warner screwed the movie from beginning to end. They:
1) Would not put a trailer before the Harry Potter movie, which would've spread the news like wildfire.
2) Wanted to market the show to little girls
3) Created a lame advertising campaign based on an R&B song regardless.
4) Made most of America believe the movie was too girly and childish, when it in fact is not.
and, no, I haven't ignored any of this. but the theory that any or all of this directly contributed to PPGmovie's poor marks is PURE SPECULATION. it is simply a collection of theories. maybe advertising strategy destroyed the movie at the box office; maybe so-so reviews did it in; maybe the actual content of the movie killed it; maybe scheduling it against MIB2; maybe all of the above. all theories, all pure speculation
END______________________________________
yesterday, with my Treehouse account, I engaged in a debate with a moderator and a few others about the PPG movie. that thread is here:
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40028
in the middle of that debate, I found myself banned from the forums and limited to private messages. there was no warning and no explanation as to why I'd been banned. when I try to make a public post with my Treehouse account, I get a message which says I've been restricted to making 10 posts a day (although it's been a day since I was banned and I still haven't been able to make any posts).
if you look at the thread, "Roger Ebert Compares The PPG Movie to Sept 11," you will see that I am not engaging in childish name-calling, and I am not being any more curt or smug than is the moderator I'm having the exchange with, Matt Wilson. in fact, the most childish response comes from the moderator, CartoonFridays, at the end of the thread where he calls me boring and says I have a big mouth. even if what he says is true, and even if the thread deserved to be closed, do I really deserve to be banned from the forum simply for having an opinion which is contrary to the opinion of the moderators?
at the very least I would like to know the reason that I was banned so that I don't make that same mistake again, here or on other forums. what was the rule I violated and was unaware of?
- do not have an opinion which is contrary to the opinions of the moderators
- do not state on this forum that you do not like the Powerpuff Girls
please do not turn this into the type of forum which censors individuals who do not conform to the status quo. to do so is fascistic, cowardly, undemocratic, childish, and an abuse of power.
below is the response to Matt Wilson's post #44 in the Roger Ebert thread which I was banned from making:
BEGIN___________________________________________
Originally posted by Matt Wilson
No, you claimed that the show is childish, that it is targetted at little girls, that all they do is form rainbows, and that any male viewer that watches it is "less manly".
All of these claims you have made are unsubstantiated.
wrong, wrong, wrong
- the "claim" that the show is childish is an opinion. it does not have to be substantiated anymore than saying a meal is too salty needs to be substantiated.
- cute things like pokemon, PPG, and Smurfs are targetted to girls, because girls like cute things more than boys do. that's not to say that the show is not targetted to boys at all. there are certainly elements in the show that appeal to boys more.
- I didn't say that ALL THEY DO is make rainbows, but doing cute girlie things is a dominating aspect of the show. even the monsters and villians are cute and huggable, for gods sake
- and please show me the post from which you quote me saying someone is "less manly" for watching PPG. I suspect that this is a complete fabrication on your part, since I do not hold this opinion.
Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Um, you yet again ignored my other points. Warner screwed the movie from beginning to end. They:
1) Would not put a trailer before the Harry Potter movie, which would've spread the news like wildfire.
2) Wanted to market the show to little girls
3) Created a lame advertising campaign based on an R&B song regardless.
4) Made most of America believe the movie was too girly and childish, when it in fact is not.
and, no, I haven't ignored any of this. but the theory that any or all of this directly contributed to PPGmovie's poor marks is PURE SPECULATION. it is simply a collection of theories. maybe advertising strategy destroyed the movie at the box office; maybe so-so reviews did it in; maybe the actual content of the movie killed it; maybe scheduling it against MIB2; maybe all of the above. all theories, all pure speculation
END______________________________________