| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:29:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by CankleFetish
I dunno who the new Merp is(and yes, I believe there's just one)
Not very likely, since two approvals are needed for every review. |
 |
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 01:01:25
|
Couple things:
1) I saw the Super Secret Forum and reported it to Benj immediately. And they had BEER and weren't sharing it with the other Forums!
B) I just had a decline with an entire paragraph ('click here for explanatin') with circles and arrows to be used as evidence against us. Which is awesome.
And, I just thought of a review, so I'm off...  |
|
|
|
Canklefish 
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 01:00:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by silly
Couple things:
1) I saw the Super Secret Forum and reported it to Benj immediately. And they had BEER and weren't sharing it with the other Forums!
B) I just had a decline with an entire paragraph ('click here for explanatin') with circles and arrows to be used as evidence against us. Which is awesome.
And, I just thought of a review, so I'm off...
I've found the 'Click here for explanation' experience to be creepy... I don't need God talking to me directly, though it certainly was an enlightening experience.
And, Sal, couldn't the new Merp be cross-referencing with an existing Merp in order to push my stellar reviews thru the meat grinder? Just a thought. I still believe there to be just one. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 01:09:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by CankleFetish
And, Sal, couldn't the new Merp be cross-referencing with an existing Merp in order to push my stellar reviews thru the meat grinder? Just a thought. I still believe there to be just one.
Yep, I considered this, and so wrote "Not very likely" instead of just "No". The reason I think it's very unlikely is that it seems to me to be quite an unlikely scenario that there was a single old MERP processing reviews promptly without any partner MERP getting to them. It's not likely that one would have kept the love up so strongly while all the others had got worn out. I'm sure Benj keeps up with putting the hours in, but I also feel certain that his approvals are solo efforts. Secondly, my post-new-MERP have patterned differently to any I've had before (i.e. they have focused on my newest submissions) - it would just be quite strange if a single new MERP's processing strategy happened to chime in with an existing one, who has no doubt already discussed such things with the other old MERPs. Thirdly, it would be quite odd for Benj to suddenly expand the MERPs but to the tune of one.
But yes, it's possible. |
|
|
|
Canklefish
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 01:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by CankleFetish
And, Sal, couldn't the new Merp be cross-referencing with an existing Merp in order to push my stellar reviews thru the meat grinder? Just a thought. I still believe there to be just one.
Yep, I considered this, and so wrote "Not very likely" instead of just "No". The reason I think it's very unlikely is that it seems to me to be quite an unlikely scenario that there was a single old MERP processing reviews promptly without any partner MERP getting to them. It's not likely that one would have kept the love up so strongly while all the others had got worn out. I'm sure Benj keeps up with putting the hours in, but I also feel certain that his approvals are solo efforts. Secondly, my post-new-MERP have patterned differently to any I've had before (i.e. they have focused on my newest submissions) - it would just be quite strange if a single new MERP's processing strategy happened to chime in with an existing one, who has no doubt already discussed such things with the other old MERPs. Thirdly, it would be quite odd for Benj to suddenly expand the MERPs but to the tune of one.
But yes, it's possible.
Very valid point and one I'd considered when typing my initial response. I can't explain why it seems to me to be just one, and I certainly have much to learn in the way of Merping. It's always seemed to me that Benj's reluctance to add any new Merps to the equation(a theory I've glimpsed in some of his various posts over the months) might validate my theory, though, 2 or maybe 3 might be a stronger theory.
I haven't a clue, just some ill-processed theories... |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 01:20:28
|
| I interpreted the same facts the other way! I took Benj's high reluctance to add MERPs to mean that, if he would add any, he'd add more than one so as not to have to come back and add more. |
|
|
|
Canklefish
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 01:34:10
|
Hmmm, I'm continuing to rethink my own personal theories regarding the addition of the new Merps, and I'll add this...
As this site continues to grow in popularity and usage, Benj may always have to come back and continue to add to the Merping family. Though this site has been running for many years now, it is my firm belief that it's still in the relative formative years of its existence... Hence, I categorize myself as a 3rd generation 'Fwiffer.'
Once again, I have very little basis for my opinion(s), just something I think about from time to time. |
Edited by - Canklefish on 04/15/2008 01:35:35 |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 18:09:57
|
Today, I have come across the "click here for details" note on a declined review. I'm going into details here because the issue regarding this particular review is frustrating me to no end. I've commented at other times on the dual portrayals of Doc Holliday by Dennis Quaid and Val Kilmer, in the early 1990s films Wyatt Earp and Tombstone and finally wrote a pair of reviews about them. The one for Wyatt Earp - Quaid half - duelling Hollidays was approved with no comment. The one for Tombstone was initially declined as "don't understand."
I resubmitted it as a first pass with an explanation of: "2 Earp pics same time:D Quaid is Holliday in other,called Duelling Hollidays,See my W Earp review" since I was at a loss as to how else to explain it. My point was that the complementary review was accepted and wasn't questioned regarding the reference. It was declined with the "click here" note of "Sorry but the fwfr should only be referencing this film. Can you please resubmit since site viewers can't be assumed to read any of your other reviews. Thank you." I'm fairly sure I wasn't suggesting that viewers of the site had to go look up my other reviews, so perhaps my explanation wasn't sufficient, but - and excuse me - the fwfr should only be referencing this film? Exactly how many of the fine reviews on this site violate that and since when was that a rule? I'm disturbed by this new revelation and will only point to the #2 review on the top 100 list: Icy dead people.
I don't care if the review gets few votes, it's my own perspective on the two films, perhaps unique, but not likely, since it's a concept that's been discussed over the years in many places other than fwfr. In any case, it is four words, it references Tombstone, and isn't generic. Suggestions on how to approach this, please? |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 18:49:10
|
| _�^^�_ �(���)�_ �^^�_ |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 20:08:48
|
| Yes, there are many pairs of reviews like this, which work very nicely. There are countless more reviews which reference other films by suggesting that the ones in question are such-and-such versions of them. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 21:31:54
|
Im guessing my Resume and Application were lost in the mail. |
Edited by - TitanPa on 04/15/2008 21:33:02 |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 15:05:11
|
Wild- I don't understand what dueling Hollidays have to do with either film, unless there are two characters named Holliday fighting in both films.
:( |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 20:31:15
|
| The reference is to the comparison of the portrayals of Doc Holliday, which at the time were much talked about: who did the better Doc Holliday - Dennis Quaid or Val Kilmer. Quaid dumped something like 40 pounds to play a rough, emaciated, skeletal Holliday who was on his last leg with tuberculosis and alcoholism, while Kilmer's was a more nuanced, charming and noble, albeit dying character. I thought both roles were, at the time, pinnacles of their acting careers. I've always thought both were better actors than their accolades have reflected. And back to fwfrs, it's rather routine for reviews to contain commentary on the portrayal of a character in another film, to make this relevant to my frustration. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 20:45:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
And back to fwfrs, it's rather routine for reviews to contain commentary on the portrayal of a character in another film, to make this relevant to my frustration.
Is it? Please tell me which these other fwfrs are so that I can re-review them. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 06:00:14
|
Not so much commentary but references to other roles. For instance, I think I've seen references to the Charleton Heston's playing Moses in other of his films, and I just had a Hard Rain review accepted that included a nod to Minnie Driver's present TV show "The Riches". I've seen this a great deal here, and there are times this works very well - especially when the actor is very famous for one particular role and we're reviewing a different film that actor is in.
There's also things like reviews of remakes that mention an actor from the original film. My own review "Not Fonda Quaid Version" for the remake of Yours, Mine and Ours, which, of course referrs to the fact that Henry Fonda did the original.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Benj - Is there a new MERP out there or something?
