|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 14, 2009 11:36:02 GMT
I don't want to get involved in the "feud" thing. I really don't have anything to add.
However, posting a comment to essentially say: "You've got it all wrong, but I won't tell you why or how" is poor form, imo. If you don't want to say something, say nothing. If one, or other, of the authors has asked for information given out to be kept confidential, than simply state that you'd spoken to the author, and they'd rather not make their feelings known.
And to further say you'd reveal all but only in PM....... Weak.
I don't know Darrell, and certainly have nothing against him, but to do what he's done - criticizing forum members and then refusing to discuss why he's doing it, it simply unnecessary.
But there ya go - I'm a newbie, and certainly don't want to get into a forum "feud" of my own.
No hard feelings, Darrell. But I think you're wrong on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Dreadlocksmile on Aug 14, 2009 11:57:08 GMT
That's kind of how I felt. I had to go back and read all of the previous posts to see what Darrell was referring to. Each and every post I did pointed out that I couldn't remember much about it all. That's why I was asking the questions. Everyone elses posts were the same. Only Funkdooby stated that Hutson (and Harris) had indeed put down Smith's work. But still, this doesn't sound wildly off the truth. Unless there's some remarkable revelation that's being kept secret. So I don't see where Darrell's coy remarks are coming from. Anyway...hopefully the good man will shed some light on the subject some more. We're all friends here squire...
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 14, 2009 12:01:49 GMT
Well, I think you're an idiot.
But I won't tell you why.
If anyone else wants to know, PM me.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Dreadlocksmile on Aug 14, 2009 12:09:34 GMT
Well, I think you're an idiot. But I won't tell you why. If anyone else wants to know, PM me. PM me for my amusing response to this.
|
|
|
Post by TheWalkinDude on Aug 14, 2009 12:55:43 GMT
You know there is only one way to settle this, a fight to the death. i say there should be a simple meeting ground where the combatants fight to the death!
now all we need is the music from Spock v Kirk for the sectators to listen to while watching.
the winner is then crowned the king of horror, while the loser is then robbed of all his possetions that he wont be needing in hell.
Round 1.... FIGHT!
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 14, 2009 12:58:57 GMT
I'll build the giant crabs suits for this. Each contestant dons one, and go at it on a beach somewhere................
|
|
|
Post by TheWalkinDude on Aug 14, 2009 13:18:22 GMT
and they have to chant "CRAB PEOPLE! CRAB PEOPLE!" while fighting!
|
|
|
Post by Dreadlocksmile on Aug 14, 2009 13:21:02 GMT
I'm ready and waiting...
|
|
|
Post by TheWalkinDude on Aug 14, 2009 13:39:52 GMT
perhaps maybe we should get a giant slug costume??
|
|
|
Post by steppedonwolf on Aug 14, 2009 18:21:40 GMT
No need. I see the beach crab is wearing Liverpool colours...
|
|
|
Post by steppedonwolf on Aug 14, 2009 19:56:27 GMT
Harris, like Hutson, said he started writing after reading a Smith novel a thinking he could do better. He was wrong, which is why he only had about half a dozen novels published before everyone lost interest in him When did Harris last have a novel published, one wonders? . Now, now. Dizzy was WRONG to slag of GNS (although I'd like to know which of Guy's books it was that made Steve go this route). If I ever meet him in the flesh I will admonish him big time (with a big whip and gimp mask, and 5% royalties on a certain website) No-one lost interest in him - all us readers were sat with our thumbs up our arses wondering when Miami 5-15 was coming out, but knowing deep down that it was them evil market forces and prattish publishers to blame for no new SH work. I've heard disturbing rumours that he no longer writes. I hope these are untrue. Sounds like he needs to smoke a DECENT fag to get his hoodoo mojo back... Silk Cut. For f*ck's sake.
|
|
|
Post by darrelljoyce on Aug 15, 2009 22:58:36 GMT
I've just sent responses to pm's people sent me after my previous posts. There seem to have been a few new posts since I logged on, though, so I'll deal with those separately.
|
|
|
Post by darrelljoyce on Aug 15, 2009 23:20:34 GMT
I don't want to get involved in the "feud" thing. I really don't have anything to add. However, posting a comment to essentially say: "You've got it all wrong, but I won't tell you why or how" is poor form, imo. If you don't want to say something, say nothing. If one, or other, of the authors has asked for information given out to be kept confidential, than simply state that you'd spoken to the author, and they'd rather not make their feelings known. And to further say you'd reveal all but only in PM....... Weak. I don't know Darrell, and certainly have nothing against him, but to do what he's done - criticizing forum members and then refusing to discuss why he's doing it, it simply unnecessary. But there ya go - I'm a newbie, and certainly don't want to get into a forum "feud" of my own. No hard feelings, Darrell. But I think you're wrong on this one. Vaughan: "Posting a comment to essentially say: You've got it all wrong, but I won't tell you why or how; is poor form, imo" Agreed - and if it came across that way, it wasn't meant to. I didn't mean to imply that any individual had got it ALL wrong (because I don't think anyone has), merely that some members were posting based on incomplete information, and that I thought I could add to what had already been said. "If one, or other, of the authors has asked for information given out to be kept confidential, than simply state that you'd spoken to the author, and they'd rather not make their feelings known." Yes, you'd be right, IF the authors concerned had asked for their information to be kept confidential. But they haven't; the decision not to publish it here on a publicly-viewable forum was my decision, not theirs. I was erring on the side of caution. "And to further say you'd reveal all but only in PM....... Weak." Hmmm...you don't say why you think it's 'weak,' so it's hard for me to comment on that. If you're implying that I'd have been better off saying nothing on the forums and limiting my responses to private messages, then you could certainly make a case for that. I just thought that posting in the thread would allow ALL posters to see what I initially had to say, and might prompt some to message me for more information (I did in fact receive several private messages to this effect, to which I've now replied). "I don't know Darrell, and certainly have nothing against him, but to do what he's done - criticizing forum members and then refusing to discuss why he's doing it, it simply unnecessary." I have nothing against you, either, and any actual or implied criticism or other forum members was simply due to my prior knowledge about the subject under discussion (btw, I fully appreciate that other members didn't have access to this before I replied to the private messages). And no, I don't refuse to discuss why I criticised other posters. I think my private message replies explain why I had 'issues' with what I saw as inaccuracies in some of the above posts. I merely chose to limit my responses to the pm format, for reasons that I hope will be obvious from the content of the private messages. If you really have nothing to add to the discussion, I'll leave it there. If, on the other hand, you'd like to pm me, I'll forward you the message I've sent to other members - and do my best to answer any further questions (the same goes for everyone, btw).
|
|
|
Post by darrelljoyce on Aug 15, 2009 23:22:14 GMT
That's kind of how I felt. I had to go back and read all of the previous posts to see what Darrell was referring to. Each and every post I did pointed out that I couldn't remember much about it all. That's why I was asking the questions. Everyone elses posts were the same. Only Funkdooby stated that Hutson (and Harris) had indeed put down Smith's work. But still, this doesn't sound wildly off the truth. Unless there's some remarkable revelation that's being kept secret. So I don't see where Darrell's coy remarks are coming from. Anyway...hopefully the good man will shed some light on the subject some more. We're all friends here squire... DLS - amongst other things, I was concerned about people using the Ross interview as a point of reference (a point which my pm replies clarified?).
|
|
|
Post by darrelljoyce on Aug 15, 2009 23:22:41 GMT
"We're all friends here squire." Amen?
|
|