The "Blofeld Trilogy" and was Diamonds are Forever a dream?

124

Comments

  • chrisisall wrote: »
    IFM..... :)>-
    Institute For Manufacturing or the Institute for Financial Management?
    They are both wonderful
    :)>- but a bit off topic. This thread is clearly popular. Shut down the football thread instead. I find it idiotic.
    Indeed. I can't help but be a bit confused by the behaviour of a few characters here. On one hand, posting on other threads with all the big, clever and intellectual words about the virtue of freedom of speech and expression etc (quite rightly), each one desperate to have the last word and yet here, willing for this rather innocuous but clearly interesting thread to be shut down. Now I am no psychologist, but if any one is displaying the signs of split personality/mental illness, then its not me!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    Edgar Allan Poe.
  • While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    Agreed, there are people here who think the Brosnan films are classics. Should we flag them? Absolutely! But do we? No, not often as it is futile.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 15,229
    [/quote]
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock? [/quote]
    It is a dream and that is the end
    [/quo

    Spot on. I think it is time to lock this sorry excuse of a thread.[/quote]

    [/quote]
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    You think your so clever but your not. Just because you can't understand you feel the need to argue anyway. I have put all the facts out, you don't agree. That's fine but why do you feel the need to carry on arguing. Does it make you feel important or something?

    You started this thread by posing a theory, albeit a very far-fetched one. A lot of people indulged you with detailed responses, based on fact, that debunked the theory. You're now proposing that it wasn't actually a theory, but fact. You've also referenced this on other threads, and indicated something regards Oberhauser in SP and dreams. That leads to the conclusion that you're a) A troll, or b) Mentally ill. Either way, I'll leave you to it.

    Spot on. I think it is time to lock this sorry excuse of a thread.
    As I say, feel free to admit defeat and leave me alone. And I in turn will leave you and the rest of your little clique to intellectualise and use big words that make you feel all clever and important elsewhere. No need to close this thread, yes, you and your mates have clearly been foxed by someone outside of your happy little group and I understand you feeling a bit irritated by that, but there is no need to be little cry babies by running off asking for the thread to be locked.

    There is no notion of falsifiability in studies of work of fiction. That said, your esoteric theory seriously challenged that. Almost as bad as the codename theory. Can't wait to read the essay.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If the Codename thread was not locked, why lock this? If it is not worth a life, it will die and end on page 200 sooner or later. Everyone who posts here keeps it alive, and kind of gives it legitimacy wether they like it or not. Right now this thread is in its prime, it seems.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2015 Posts: 10,512
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Agreed, there are people here who think the Brosnan films are classics. Should we flag them? Absolutely! But do we? No, not often as it is futile.

    Glad to see you haven't lost that delicate sense of humor Valentin. ;)
  • Posts: 15,229
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed, there are people here who think the Brosnan films are classics. Should we flag them? Absolutely! But do we? No, not often as it is futile.

    Glad to see you haven't lost that delicate sense of humor Valentin. ;)

    Zuck ov! :-*
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".

    Brilliant.

    I assume you'll be retracting this statement then...
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    After all, a statement of fact can't be discussed. For discussion to continue, you'd have to acknowledge that this is still just a theoretical opinion of yours.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".

    Brilliant.

    I assume you'll be retracting this statement then...
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    After all, a statement of fact can't be discussed. For discussion to continue, you'd have to acknowledge that this is still just a theoretical opinion of yours.
    Tell me, why do you have such a commitment to this? I'll repeat what I said to someone earlier in the thread, no once is forcing you to contribute. So why do you continue, is it an ego thing? Are you trying to get as many posts on this forum as possible? Would it help if I gave you a gold star and a smiley face :-) tell you how clever you are and knowledgeable? Or are you just unable to help yourself, the lure of that keyboard screaming to you, "you simply must respond!"

    Again, I invite you to simply leave this alone and accept defeat. Again, no hard feelings.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".

    Brilliant.

    I assume you'll be retracting this statement then...
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    After all, a statement of fact can't be discussed. For discussion to continue, you'd have to acknowledge that this is still just a theoretical opinion of yours.
    Tell me, why do you have such a commitment to this? I'll repeat what I said to someone earlier in the thread, no once is forcing you to contribute. So why do you continue, is it an ego thing? Are you trying to get as many posts on this forum as possible? Would it help if I gave you a gold star and a smiley face :-) tell you how clever you are and knowledgeable? Or are you just unable to help yourself, the lure of that keyboard screaming to you, "you simply must respond!"

    Again, I invite you to simply leave this alone and accept defeat. Again, no hard feelings.

    Just exposing you. Thanks for playing along.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".

    Brilliant.

    I assume you'll be retracting this statement then...
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    After all, a statement of fact can't be discussed. For discussion to continue, you'd have to acknowledge that this is still just a theoretical opinion of yours.
    Tell me, why do you have such a commitment to this? I'll repeat what I said to someone earlier in the thread, no once is forcing you to contribute. So why do you continue, is it an ego thing? Are you trying to get as many posts on this forum as possible? Would it help if I gave you a gold star and a smiley face :-) tell you how clever you are and knowledgeable? Or are you just unable to help yourself, the lure of that keyboard screaming to you, "you simply must respond!"

    Again, I invite you to simply leave this alone and accept defeat. Again, no hard feelings.

    Just exposing you. Thanks for playing along.

    Oh no! I've been exposed, on the internet! Whatever that means?

    You are wasted here, on a James Bond forum, you should really consider investigative journalism, there must be a Pulitzer Award with you're name on it!

    Again, no hard feelings.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".

    Brilliant.

    I assume you'll be retracting this statement then...
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    After all, a statement of fact can't be discussed. For discussion to continue, you'd have to acknowledge that this is still just a theoretical opinion of yours.
    Tell me, why do you have such a commitment to this? I'll repeat what I said to someone earlier in the thread, no once is forcing you to contribute. So why do you continue, is it an ego thing? Are you trying to get as many posts on this forum as possible? Would it help if I gave you a gold star and a smiley face :-) tell you how clever you are and knowledgeable? Or are you just unable to help yourself, the lure of that keyboard screaming to you, "you simply must respond!"

    Again, I invite you to simply leave this alone and accept defeat. Again, no hard feelings.

    Just exposing you. Thanks for playing along.

    Oh no! I've been exposed, on the internet! Whatever that means?

    You are wasted here, on a James Bond forum, you should really consider investigative journalism, there must be a Pulitzer Award with you're name on it!

    Again, no hard feelings.

    I have two BAFTA's and an NTA, a Pulitzer would clutter the mantelpiece.
  • Posts: 15,229
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    While I don't agree with @MartinAston's theory, don't you guys think you're being alittle harsh on him? The guy is entitled to an opinion, however far fetched it is. I don't see the need for name calling.

    It started off as an opinion and was discussed as such. If he wants to continue with that, it's fine by me. But at the moment we're in a position where he's dismissing factual evidence out of hand, while offering no factual evidence of his own, and what started as opinion he is now deeming a 'fact'. If he wants to acknowledge that it is merely a 'theory' and not 'fact', I'm sure the discussion can continue. However inane it appears to be.

    Ditto.
    It is nice that you and your friend have had a change of heart and decided to keep this important thread going, maybe a change of direction from the usual love ins that you have elsewhere would be good for you?

    Anyways, back to the thread. So far, you haven't offered "factual evidence" at all, only you're opinions, whilst I have put forward a detailed tapestry bringing together all the evidence from the different films as well as the background information of the producers at the time. I may indeed research further and put forward more evidence, but as it stands, despite you're very noisy protestations, my facts have not been, as you put it "debunked".

    This very important thread? Gee, man, you sure love that guy you see in the mirror every day! What other important threads do you have up your sleeve? I can barely wait. Enlighten me.

    I have to offer no evidence whatsoever. That's not my probem. See, the burden of proof resides on the person making the positive claim. DAF is all a dream is your claim. You need to prove it beyond doubt. Or at least make it remotely plausible. As it stands, you have put forward no evidence whatsoever. For your claim. YOU made the positive assertion.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    And yet. This thread is on top, and has four pages already. Well done!
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    Just a sec, have I slipped into a parallel universe whereby the same laws in an established legal jurisdiction are applicable in a James Bond forum.

    If your mate RC7 should be investigative journalism, then Ludovico should definitely consider a career in case law, you would go far!

    No hard feelings.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Just a sec, have I slipped into a parallel universe whereby the same laws in an established legal jurisdiction are applicable in a James Bond forum.

    If your mate RC7 should be investigative journalism, then Ludovico should definitely consider a career in case law, you would go far!

    No hard feelings.

    Still waiting on that factual evidence, or a retraction. Good luck and no hard feelings.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Just a sec, have I slipped into a parallel universe whereby the same laws in an established legal jurisdiction are applicable in a James Bond forum.

    If your mate RC7 should be investigative journalism, then Ludovico should definitely consider a career in case law, you would go far!

    No hard feelings.

    Still waiting on that factual evidence, or a retraction. Good luck and no hard feelings.
    No retraction and I have already given the facts. I may have more to follow........
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 15,229
    And yet. This thread is on top, and has four pages already. Well done!

    If you think the number of posts show the popularity of threads, start a thread with the title "Bond should be a woman", "Bond should be gay" or "Bring back Brosnan already" and see how popular it can be.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited January 2015 Posts: 16,359
    I am James Bond. Because I think I am, therefore It must be true. ;)
  • Posts: 15,229
    Murdock wrote: »
    I am James Bond. Because I think I am, therefore It must be true. ;)

    And I can't really say anything against this, there is no evidence to disprove your claim. I mean your family name might be Bond and you may have been christened James. Bond is a common family name. James is a really common name. For all we know, you could be an MI6 operative...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I am James Bond. Because I think I am, therefore It must be true. ;)

    And I can't really say anything against this, there is no evidence to disprove your claim. I mean your family name might be Bond and you may have been christened James. Bond is a common family name. James is a really common name. For all we know, you could be an MI6 operative...

    But this is an unstable element I added to the stew. I've spoken my real name several times on this tread. And I am an MI6 operative. So are you. Every member on this forum is. =))
  • Posts: 15,229
    So James Bond is a codename after all.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Were all codenames! :D
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I must be dreaming...
  • Posts: 12,526
    DAF a dream? I am having visions of Dallas and Bobby Ewing!!!! X_X :))
  • RogueAgent wrote: »
    DAF a dream? I am having visions of Dallas and Bobby Ewing!!!! X_X :))
    It would appear that this is indeed the case.

Sign In or Register to comment.