Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Brosnan's Bond movies need to be respected dispite certain issues with their respective contents.
chrisisall
Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
Okay, reset button.
Please people, Brosnan may not be your favourite Bond but trashing him constantly is what my thread here was trying to (in its admittedly ham-fisted, clumsy way) make fun of, and hopefully curb to some small degree.
He was our 007 for seven years, and I for one loved him.
Please people, Brosnan may not be your favourite Bond but trashing him constantly is what my thread here was trying to (in its admittedly ham-fisted, clumsy way) make fun of, and hopefully curb to some small degree.
He was our 007 for seven years, and I for one loved him.
This discussion has been closed.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But a pure hate thread is just ridicoulous!
@chrisisall Likes Brosnan. I think he's just doing it to take the piss out of the OTT ammount of hate he gets on this site.
It has heretofore been too widely spread out and clearly needs to be concentrated in one place so as not to dilute its intensity.
Yeah, same thing different name. The Brosnan hate is going to carry on, just as people disliked Dalton when Brosnan were Bond and as people were disliking Moore when Dalton was Bond. There are always going to be complaints, it just depends on how loudly the different nay-sayers are.
AND I AM SEEING A PROBABLE FIGHT HERE. No fighting. We don't need that.
ALL the actors to play Bond had their individual greatness to them.
ALL of them deserve our respect & gratitude for a job well done, no matter the circumstances of their contributions.
Brosnan was great in his way, and that's the last thing I have to say on this thread.
Peace.
For God Sake, stop with your contraditoriousness.
This whole thread is a poor bit of immature sarcasm.
Add to that the obviously oversimplifying statement that we, mods, will not allow this ushering in of personal thoughts, which narrows the purpose of this thread down to pure mod provocation for some. The sparse bitterness which has unfortunately survived the battlefields of our tumultuous SF conflicts continues to cloud certain minds. You see, mods will never block members of this forum from expressing their thoughts, no matter how personal, but all depends on how it is done and on where the thoughts, as expressed, will take us.
Allow me to explain... again.
1) When one feels the need to criticise some part of the Bond franchise, one must first seek out the proper thread. We already have the 'controversial opinions' thread, for example, and a couple of extra threads to choose from, in which one can play things closer to the subject. For instance, multiple Brosnan related threads exist. A thread which is started now as nothing but an anti-Brosnan pamphlet, will, because of the available alternatives, be swiftly considered to be either an impulsive action in a moment of emotional weakness, or a poor attempt to provoke aggressive responses which can then, in turn, be met with the desired level of aggression themselves. Such a fierce reception can only be avoided if one takes the trouble to write down one's arguments like a well-constructed micro-essay in a thread which has already established the possibility of doing so. By the way, the same goes for threads which are a blunt yet empty love letter to a specific element in the Bond franchise. They too seem to contribute fairly little to our forum and are sometimes intended to stir things up with those who have previously expressed a lack of appreciation for said element.
2) Even if the topic of a thread can somehow be made sufficiently unique and stand-alone to justify its existence, the title of such a thread makes all the difference in the world. Allow me, please, to use an analogy. If your club house puts a line in its mission statement saying you're all about one particular political wing and anti the other, and you do so without manifestly upsetting the other wing, those who are in your camp will visit and take part in your activities, and those who aren't may either pass on the occasion or drop by as well, but with a level of modesty. However, if you hang large banners outside, calling the other camp names or verbally condemning it to the darkest ends of the universe, you intentionally try to light certain fuses. If you are unable to understand that, then you are ignorant - it should be said. Now, returning to our situation here, I can't stress enough how much we, mods, are open to the idea of "niche" threads, where a group, no matter how large or small, can freely blow off some steam vis-a-vis a particular element in the Bond franchise. That said, I similarly can't stress enough how much we effort to keep the hallways of our forum clean of disturbing and polarizing slogans. The inflections as present in the title of a thread can make all the difference.
3) Still, while the thread's title may offer a level of respect to everyone by not including overtly spiteful phrases, the activities it presents inside still require a minimal stretch of decency. After all, you are allowed some freedom within the walls of your club house too, but you can't break certain laws. Now, it's hard sometimes to draw a line in that situation, I will honestly admit that, in which case the mods, contrary to some biased belief, always allow our members the benefit of the doubt. In other words, we jump into action when things have already gone too far, rather than being too careful and shutting the place down without any real harm done. I don't even know if that's necessarily a good thing; it merely demonstrates that we do give chances and a lot of credit to our members before stepping in. We're no police, mind, we're only here to make sure that we all, being guests to the people who set up this forum and who labour every day to keep it alive and fuelled with fresh information, behave according to the terms and conditions of the forum, to which we all agreed, it should be said, when accepting our membership. Thus, when posts come with nasty subtexts (although they are mostly very unsubtle about their deliberately provocative nature), we fear they will ignite a lot of turmoil, ending in constant bickering and a linear sequence of warnings and possibly even suspensions and bans being handed out. We really don't like to do that but sometimes it is made mandatory through some member's stubbornness. Closing down an inflammable thread that scores too high a potential for causing a lot of forum trouble and personal attacks, is a matter of precaution for the sake of everyone involved (emphasis on 'everyone'). It is not a fascist form of censorship from us. And as explained a few lines back, we will already have carefully assessed the thread before we call it inflammable and consider it prudent to have it shut down.
Please understand that debates between members with conflicting views and opinions are a welcome and essential element for a forum like this. No matter how controversial a Bond-related opinion is, it can be safely expressed. But the member who states his opinion in absolute terms, using hyperbolic phrases clearly meant to upset others, or pouring in sarcasm or targeting certain folks, is always the weaker one in such debates. Sometimes the weaker one is the one who starts the debate and sometimes it's the one who does a poor job countering it. A word of advice: you feel angry about something? Type it down in as neutral a manner as possible. Don't withhold your thoughts, just state them in such a way that the chances of being personally attacked on the matter are kept minimal. That way you've gotten your frustrations out of your system but you're leaving others little room to attack you. Truth be told, this very post of mine has grown out of pure frustration on behalf of this thread, its title and how its few posts so far contain nothing but vitriol and not a single serious argument or counterargument. Yet I think I've not done such a bad job at stating my thoughts and at the same time defending the mod's policy when the ground becomes too unstable for comfort. That way, I invite anyone who feels insulted by my post to openly say so. This is how you debate something whilst not losing the battle before you've even started it. Sadly, however, the very premise of this thread (its title + its initial post(s)) has drawn blood without giving this thread a fair chance of allowing all of us to drop by and leave again unscathed.
So, where do we stand? I shall for now leave this thread open, allowing its contributors to prove that it's earned its existence in this adult forum for Bond fans. The title can be rephrased and certain posts can be edited or put up for deletion. If, however, in due time it is still nothing but a collection of clumsy and childish 'you are so-and-so' versus 'no, YOU are so-and-so' posts, it will be terminated. Ultimately, it so far hasn't even lived up to its poorly phrased title.
I believe we're being very fair here. It's up to you now. Thanks in advance.
I did change the title and the opening post for what it's worth to reflect the true objective of my thread.