Jump to content

a few more guests to come and maybe a big one maybe one more ?


Recommended Posts

Im hoping theres an opp to do some of the photoshoots on the friday night as its goin to be crazy all weekend 14shoots and more to be announced that being said I love it keep em coming id be over the moon for Nathan Fillion, Summer Glau, Eliza Dushku, Angus Scrimm god I could keep typing .....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well exactly. In the end, if/when this 'big' guest gets announced, you'll get some "yays!" some "oh.." and some "who the f**k?" .. but who cares :D

 

To be honest, theres a shed load of names mentioned in this thread and they've got the same reaction to when (in the past) I've watched celebrity big brother and someone is announced and the first words that come to mind are:

 

"Who?"

 

In fact, one name has been said a lot in this thread and I actually ended up having to Wikipedia hi- them to see what all the fuss was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the people suggesting Nathan Fillon,I would be very surprised if he was considered a big guest.I hadn't even heard of him and upon searching for him I doubt many others have, to class as a big guest.

 

just had to laugh a little about this

 

I got a good chuckle from this myself too!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Nathan was announced he'd be my biggest guest, bigger than Gillian Anderson, bigger than Charles Dance, bigger than Iain Glen, he's the one I'd drop everything for to meet.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth! I would lose my mind over Nathan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well exactly. In the end, if/when this 'big' guest gets announced, you'll get some "yays!" some "oh.." and some "who the f**k?" .. but who cares :D

agreed on the 'who cares', theres something for everyone this year.'Big ' or 'Small' guest comes down to everybodys personal interest.For me 'Dr Who' leaves me cold, don't watch it, but i love The Sopranos and would love someone from that show, allthough most people wouldn't really know most of the cast for me it would be huge news.. All down to what you watch.Just happy that showmasters keeps going and keeps on getting people i'll like to meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan Fillion I bet?

 

Well thank you Mr. Insider/Smartypants. (who just happens to be following me on Twitter grrr)

 

I'd like to give you the paperwork for a new business venture which involves selling Tar and Feathers. Knock yourself out. ;) lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well exactly. In the end, if/when this 'big' guest gets announced, you'll get some "yays!" some "oh.." and some "who the f**k?" .. but who cares :D

Could somebody please clarify if the rules don't apply to moderators, or if this part of rule 1 has been rescinded for all forum users?

You tell me how to use that phrase without the word in question please. ;)

You tell me why a moderator needs to use that phrase. They weren't quoting anybody direct, they were using it themselves. What's wrong with "Who the hell?" or "Who on earth?" I can turn the air blue with the best of them, but I choose to moderate my language on here because of your rules and in deference to the fact that this supposed to be a family-friendly forum. If you now inform me that that one of those rules doesn't apply all the time, it also makes me wonder what others don't apply all the time.

The word is on the bad word filter and if it's used it is automatically changed, for everyone. But as long as it's deliberately "bleeped out" (as in this case) the mods have never stepped in - for no one -

Well please can you let me me know why your rule reads as it does?

Typing the word out in full triggers the rude word filter. Typing out the word with the middle two letters replaced by asterisks doesn't. Asterisking out those middle letters is surely a a prima facie example of getting around the rude word filter. That in itself would appear to break the rule.

And again, to quote your rules:

"If a word is censored it is because we do not wish it to be on this forum. Please find another word to use."

It seems to me that there is a clear rule that the word in question should not be used on the forum. Even if I can see some sort of pragmatic logic in not rigidly enforcing it, I would have thought that a moderator would think better of deliberately flouting the rule themself.

And I also happen to think that it undermines your authority and ability to wave the rules at somebody who is doing wrong, if we already know that at least one of the rules doesn't really apply in a lot of cases. But hey, that's just my opinion...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well exactly. In the end, if/when this 'big' guest gets announced, you'll get some "yays!" some "oh.." and some "who the f**k?" .. but who cares :D

Could somebody please clarify if the rules don't apply to moderators, or if this part of rule 1 has been rescinded for all forum users?

You tell me how to use that phrase without the word in question please. ;)

You tell me why a moderator needs to use that phrase. They weren't quoting anybody direct, they were using it themselves. What's wrong with "Who the hell?" or "Who on earth?" I can turn the air blue with the best of them, but I choose to moderate my language on here because of your rules and in deference to the fact that this supposed to be a family-friendly forum. If you now inform me that that one of those rules doesn't apply all the time, it also makes me wonder what others don't apply all the time.

The word is on the bad word filter and if it's used it is automatically changed, for everyone. But as long as it's deliberately "bleeped out" (as in this case) the mods have never stepped in - for no one -

Well please can you let me me know why your rule reads as it does?

Typing the word out in full triggers the rude word filter. Typing out the word with the middle two letters replaced by asterisks doesn't. Asterisking out those middle letters is surely a a prima facie example of getting around the rude word filter. That in itself would appear to break the rule.

And again, to quote your rules:

"If a word is censored it is because we do not wish it to be on this forum. Please find another word to use."

It seems to me that there is a clear rule that the word in question should not be used on the forum. Even if I can see some sort of pragmatic logic in not rigidly enforcing it, I would have thought that a moderator would think better of deliberately flouting the rule themself.

And I also happen to think that it undermines your authority and ability to wave the rules at somebody who is doing wrong, if we already know that at least one of the rules doesn't really apply in a lot of cases. But hey, that's just my opinion...

 

yesh, chillax man.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well exactly. In the end, if/when this 'big' guest gets announced, you'll get some "yays!" some "oh.." and some "who the f**k?" .. but who cares :D

Could somebody please clarify if the rules don't apply to moderators, or if this part of rule 1 has been rescinded for all forum users?

You tell me how to use that phrase without the word in question please. ;)

You tell me why a moderator needs to use that phrase. They weren't quoting anybody direct, they were using it themselves. What's wrong with "Who the hell?" or "Who on earth?" I can turn the air blue with the best of them, but I choose to moderate my language on here because of your rules and in deference to the fact that this supposed to be a family-friendly forum. If you now inform me that that one of those rules doesn't apply all the time, it also makes me wonder what others don't apply all the time.

The word is on the bad word filter and if it's used it is automatically changed, for everyone. But as long as it's deliberately "bleeped out" (as in this case) the mods have never stepped in - for no one -

Well please can you let me me know why your rule reads as it does?

Typing the word out in full triggers the rude word filter. Typing out the word with the middle two letters replaced by asterisks doesn't. Asterisking out those middle letters is surely a a prima facie example of getting around the rude word filter. That in itself would appear to break the rule.

And again, to quote your rules:

"If a word is censored it is because we do not wish it to be on this forum. Please find another word to use."

It seems to me that there is a clear rule that the word in question should not be used on the forum. Even if I can see some sort of pragmatic logic in not rigidly enforcing it, I would have thought that a moderator would think better of deliberately flouting the rule themself.

And I also happen to think that it undermines your authority and ability to wave the rules at somebody who is doing wrong, if we already know that at least one of the rules doesn't really apply in a lot of cases. But hey, that's just my opinion...

 

yesh, chillax man.

 

Why is the word fork in the swear filter?

 

:whistling:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love reading discussions about 'Big' guests, and the announcement threads themselves. People's reactions are either ecstatic or disappointed, which is a real shame. If you are a fan of these events then you'll appreciate that some guests may not be to your taste. I don't see why complaining about it is productive or helpful, just leave the topic alone or if you can understand why people would classify them as a 'big' guest then why not say something like "great guest, well done SM" rather than "Who?".

I am not an X-Files or a Star Trek fan, but LFCC this year is AMAZING for people who are, so well done to SM for getting the line up they have! On the other hand, Holly Marie Combs, Adam Baldwin, Norman Reedus etc are MASSIVE guests for me!

 

I would like to see SM pull off another big guest for the event, whether it be for my taste or not, who knows if they will. But wouldn't it be great if they did???

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love reading discussions about 'Big' guests, and the announcement threads themselves. People's reactions are either ecstatic or disappointed, which is a real shame. If you are a fan of these events then you'll appreciate that some guests may not be to your taste. I don't see why complaining about it is productive or helpful, just leave the topic alone or if you can understand why people would classify them as a 'big' guest then why not say something like "great guest, well done SM" rather than "Who?".

I am not an X-Files or a Star Trek fan, but LFCC this year is AMAZING for people who are, so well done to SM for getting the line up they have! On the other hand, Holly Marie Combs, Adam Baldwin, Norman Reedus etc are MASSIVE guests for me!

 

I would like to see SM pull off another big guest for the event, whether it be for my taste or not, who knows if they will. But wouldn't it be great if they did???

 

Well said. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...