"How low can a Poster go?" Topic

I think we are all used to heated threads in the Napoleonic sections of this esteemed site, and I daresay I have typed in apoplectic anger more than once, and subsequently had to apologise…

But this part of a post actually chilled my blood for a moment:

You have not condemed Mr. Hollins low act. Why is that? Do you think it it okay for an author to write himsel;f a 5 star review?

It seems to betray an almost Stalinesque level of paranoia -'If you dont join in pointing the finger at the accused, well then perhaps you are guilty too?'

Does anyone else find this logic worrying? At the risk of sounding prejudiced, it seems rather un anglo-saxon?

The Stifle button is a wonderful thing. I've learned to embrace it. In the case of the person to whom you refer… I consider it as essential as toilet paper.

In my defense, on that thread I will say that I did not quite call the OP an ass. However, one might infer that that is what I was thinking.
I think I am off the hook, Stalinistically speaking.

No, I am off the hook!

I'm not sure if the OP is an ass, but he's clearly in denial regarding his obsession with the accused. It's actually rather creepy, just like his disturbed logic. He repeatedly claims to have nothing against the author, yet he begins a thread to cast aspersions on the man's character for the horrible crime of self-promotion.

I don't have a dog in this perpetual hand bag fight, but when someone tries to tell me the sea ain't wet I get a little honked off! Just because you're an ignoramus doesn't give you the right to assume the same of me.

it seems rather un anglo-saxon?

Now don't start any race riots here…

My brother always used to say that intelligent people assume everyone else is as intelligent as they are and that stupid people assume everyone else is as stupid as they are. I'm not so sure about the first half of that – I consider myself to be halfways intelligent at least and I recognize lots of people as being stupid. The second half, though, seems to ring true time and time again.

Then again, maybe I really am just stupid and here I am assuming everyone else is as stupid as I am…

Crunch.

What do you expect it is the Napoleonic thread ? Reason and polite behaviour seem to be left at the door.. Surprised that the Board does not blow up more often then it does as it certainly has the greatest concentration of egotists on TNP

greatest concentration of egotists on TNP

TNP? The Napoleonic Page? Could that be a freudian typo!

Unfortunately I have to agree that the background ego count on the Napoleonics boards does seem to run several times higher than background bigheadedness….

Myself included!

Dear Bill – regarding your gentle warning – Yes, but its was just shorthand for un American, Un Australian, Un English etc, etc

I think you're over rating the thread/ post, Sparker.

In the thread in question, there's not one threat of legal action yet.

No-one has accused his opponents of being certifiably insane.

No allegations of office-mobbing,tampering with evidence or deliberately misquoting sources. No Mad Hoffies appearing under false names.

Hey, these guys destroyed the first Napoleon Series forum when the owner had enough of their flame wars & pulled the plug.

This is small, petty beans.

TNP probably was a Freudian slip it certainly raises my "id"

Ml

I am a bit confused ;-))

Dave Hollins is a co – author of the book, others contributed as well – or do I see this wrongly?

For that reasons Dave Hollins would be perfectly right to write a review and class the work of hos co – authors.

I agree the stiffle buttons makes the Napoleon board on TNT ;-)) – pleasant – Gazzola, 10th Marines and his many other names, Ochoin, Ochoin deach etc, etc., ….

Sparker,

It probably came a something of a surprise to many that I was able to rein in my practically unbridled macho BS that I did not wade in against Hollins, considering my form with him. Regardless of my reasons for not contributing do you not hink in restrospect that basically here you are guilty of the same, if not owrse. This is crass internet bullying, by which I mean you are picking on a thoroughly safe subject knowing Gazzola has enough vehement enemies on the Napoleonic boards plus a large number of the 'neutrals' have already come out against him on this subject.

As such what are you planning to do other than gratuitously kick a man while he's down?

Sure, Napoleonics is replete with open warfare, but at least there's a degree of honesty in the unpleasantness, and I include my opponents in this. You know what you are going to get.

I never ever dealt with a single person who didn't have at least one secret that they didn't want locked in the proverbial cupboard, so the 'neutral' 'holier than thou brigade' currently operating here might want to pause and think before getting so precious and superior.

I haven't been checking the Napoleonic page for a few days… Did I miss a murder?

I haven't been checking the Napoleonic page for a few days… Did I miss a murder?

Close, more of a character assassination though.

I miss all the fun :(

And he's back! Excellent! You have been missed Mr Sage.

Connard! ca va?

I am welling up!

Pat

I had heard about the proclivities of the nappy page, but had never seen it until the thread referred to here. Uh-huh.

I don't know which thread this is, but the William Shatner thread is in contrast entirely civilised.

This may be because William Shatner is one of that handful of people – which also includes David Hasselhoff, Prince Charles, and Peter Hofschroer – the mere mention of whose name is enough to bring a happy smile to most people's faces.

The other aspect of it is the book burning, much beloved of Stalinesque types, alongside a denial that they are doing so.

I was really just talking about the book in general and what it was intended to do. There are obviously limitations to what can be done in this format, but as something to guide new readers and to summarise the current thinking for veterans, I thought it worked well. It seems that those so keen to hand it out were complaining!

This is a toy gaming board still right?

How people who play with little painted men take themselves seriously baffles me :)

jon

Hans-Karl/Von W.
You've stiffled me old buddy?

I'm desolate. 87)

but the William Shatner thread is in contrast entirely civilised

Now, we can't have that. Fixed it for you.

This is a toy gaming board still right?

Ahhhhh no Blucher – the 'Napoleonic History' and 'Napoleonic Books' Boards were created so the ivory-tower dwellers could throw poo at each other while not being associated with something so childish as Toy Soldiers. Several of the posters on those two threads DON'T ACTUALLY WARGAME AT ALL.

sends a cold shudder down your spine, no?

Pat

You had Heard About The Proclivities Of The Nappy Page? You must try and get out more, artaxerxes.

Thank you both. I've been missed you say? That's because I know how to use cover and avoid those little bright red dots…

Sane Max, why do I have a feeling that you have an evil twin? An evil twin with a comedy Oirish name?

but the William Shatner thread is in contrast entirely civilised

Read that. I sense that one poster Doesn't Get It. At all.

Sane Max raises a point. (steady, buddy. There may be women present).

Must you be a gamer to frequent the Hallowed Halls of TMP?

I say. NO!

Bring us your tired wanna-be historians, your poor refugees from school history faculties,
Your huddled Osprey authors yearning to breathe free
(or, for a small fee, become a supporting member of TMP)
The wretched Mad Hoffies of your teeming shore.
Send these, the cursed polyglot researchers to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

(cue patriotic music: YouTube link

We takes all sorts.

von Winterfeldt

No, authors do not write 5 star reviews about their own work. That is vanity to the extreme. It is a known fact in the publishing world and he knows it. Why do you think Amazon removed it? It was after all a 5 star review. They wouldn't do that unless it was wrong, which it was and sadly, Mr. Hollins knows that but felt he could get away with it. He should have kept it as a comment, but then again, he couldn't award himself 5 stars then, could he. His motives are extremely questionable.

"I miss all the fun :("

You see Connard, you haven't missed the fun because the fun just keeps on coming.

Dave Hollins

The book does not work as it stands. Not when three authors take up almost 50% of the actual pages describing the armies. That doesn't leave much for the the authors of the the other 7 armies, does it?

The book should have contained 5 armies at the most, giving them around 50 pages each, plus the introduction, the pages on notes and book lists. If the Austrians were included, you would have got another 9 pages. But perhaps a lesson can be learnt from this mistake if Armies Volume 2 is ever considered.

Well, Gazzola, as you seem to be the only person who sees it as a mistake, I hardly think anyone needs to learn from it!!!

Sane Max, why do I have a feeling that you have an evil twin?

Eh? I thought you were my evil twin, not the other way round.. Hmmm, could be where we have been going wrong all this time.

Well, I will cheerfully change my user name to Mr. Hyde if you amend yours to Doctor Jekyl.

Pat

But yes, you are correct – I guess two other people have spotted it as well.

If you hang the poster too low, fewer people will see it.

Other than that, it seems like the floor is the limit.
-Kle.

Speaking of crime shows these threads could be a clue on "Midsomer Murders" – would make a good plot or what?

These threads are almost entertaining in a pathetic way.

A shame that they do seem to leave a lasting impression on people I try and get to come over and enjoy a Nap game. Some of the best gaming I have enjoyed to date, yet, many of my opponent view Napoleonic's in the light of these threads.

Personally I view this mundane idiotic banters a sort of ritualistic self abuse that must be endured in order to enjoy Napoleonics. It must be a disease set on by incessant painting of the same uniform 1,000 times, before switching to the same uniform another 1,000 times but with a new facing.

(I apologize for grammatical errors, edumakation failt me sum)

The dislike of authors who praise their own works in reviews is not new, as can be seen in an interesting article from 2002:

type in the following:

Authors who write their own five-star reviews – Telelgraph

It states clearly why they did so

We

Don't

Care

You can bang on ad nauseam (that's not an invite BTW). We. Aren't. Bothered.

Anyone with an ounce of common would have gathered this from the massive support your posts aren't getting.

God knows I'm not a Hollins fan by any means, but this is getting tiresome.

Telelgraph?

I just don't see how this behavior is tolerated here.

Now who is Gazzola and why am I supposed to like/hate him?

Thank you both. I've been missed you say? That's because I know how to use cover and avoid those little bright red dots…

That's why we're switching to area effect weapons…

I think I ignored yesterday's flapdoodle, but I'm going back to see what I can stir up.

Nah!!!!! At 139 posts, It doesn't need any help from me.
anyone?

Since someone was recently banned from the TMP forums for alleged "harassment" by repeatedly clashing with another poster and making disparaging remarks across multiple threads, it's hard to see why this doesn't result in similar action. The same nasty comments about the same person appearing in multiple threads, even one unrelated to the book or author in question (A new Napoleonic Fiction Book thread). And the exact same post copied into multiple threads (Telegraph reference). Looks like either an obsession or a vendetta, disingenuous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Maybe the stifle button has something to do with it, the harassee can't see the harassment. Either that or the harassee in the first instance was whinier and more thin-skinned and was always pushing the complaint button.

But the commentary on the threads is a scream. Great entertainment value.

This has all proved most enjoyable!

Why would anyone stifle another and miss the comedy that is TMP?

It sure beats most reality programing.

"How low can X go" does seem a bit of a personal attack when X is defined so…

Ah, but Terrement, is that REALLY a poster? I would tend to think that was a lobby card and thus, at least as defined by the International Protocols on Posters, Postcards and Placards signed in 1938 (The Paris Protocol PPP Accords, or 5P for short) that what you have was definitively NOT a poster, even if we allow for the Potsdam and Podunk amendments. Thus, your post purporting possible particular poster problems probably should be prohibited.

average joe you are John Cooper Clark, and I claim my five pounds.

Sorry, Comrade Connrad, but my actual name is Lenny Siberia.

The bastard offspring of Captain Africa and Tracy?

I always hated that term "bastard". After all, I knew who my father was even if I didn't recognize him when I saw him.

BTW, would all of you agree that we should organize a limbo contest at the next Historicon so we can settle this question about authors and posters once and for all?