|
Post by jilly2000 on May 13, 2008 14:30:14 GMT -5
The big laugh, for all those folk donating to 'help with messageboard costs' is that, at the bottom of said messageboard, it says 'Hosted for free by InvisionFree'!!!! There has been no reaction on Splodgy so far. Doubt if anybody has the cojones to make any enquiries. They very blithely carry on posting banal comments. So Splodgy is financially dodgy. Webmzes listen. Choo choo. The gravy train is coming to the last station finally now the cat is out of the bag
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 13, 2008 17:03:38 GMT -5
The big laugh, for all those folk donating to 'help with messageboard costs' is that, at the bottom of said messageboard, it says 'Hosted for free by InvisionFree'!!!! There has been no reaction on Splodgy so far. Doubt if anybody has the cojones to make any enquiries. They very blithely carry on posting banal comments. So Splodgy is financially dodgy. Webmzes listen. Choo choo. The gravy train is coming to the last station finally now the cat is out of the bag The problem is, the cat has been out of the bag for some time now, at least partially, and everyone averts their eyes and pretends they don't know. No one wants to say anything because they're afraid they'll get banned. It's the reason RomanMachine and I got banned from the board in the first place- we questioned where the money was going. (Check out my "rebuttal" shortly after we got banned.) In a nutshell, some of the things we asked at the time, and in the rebuttal later- - at the time, we questioned why 3 of their sites (mj.net, sl.net and the nikki/helen site) were under THREE different servers, when they could save money by amalgamating them all under one.
- When they finally admitted to doing that very thing, we questioned why it was costing them exactly the same amount of money as THREE servers did!
- PayPal balances at the end of each month should, by rights, be made public so we know they're not making MORE money than they claim they need.
- Along with the above, they no longer keep track of how much the balance is for each month on the messageboard. So we have no idea how much more they're getting past the amount they ask.
- They have ads on every page of every site. Financial records should also be made public in regards to how much (if any) those ads are generating for them. And any money should, by rights, go towards the costs. (Which, obviously it doesn't, if the exact same amount is requested every single month.)
- And now, with this realization that the £25 they're asking for, per month, is for a free message board, I'd add, "What???"
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 15, 2008 10:32:11 GMT -5
I mentioned this in the "Occasional, Strong" thread, but it has gotten under my skin so much that I'm going to say something here as well. I'm not sure I can articulate how incredibly pissed off I am about molsongrrrl adding the OS file to her site without even batting an eyelash of acknowledgment our way. After the 3rd Green Flag debacle, where they blatantly stole the clip from our site, I expect it from Splodgy- I fully expect them to steal anything and everything they can't get on their own, without ever acknowledging their sources. I expect that. (Despite their claim of, " Copyright: every effort has been made to locate copyright holders of material included on this website and acknowledged accordingly." Ha! Hahahahahahahahaha!!) In fact, as I mentioned in the OS thread, I fully expected them to steal the OS file once we converted it to a downloadable one, because god forbid they do any work themselves. (I didn't expect them to try and convert the Daily Motion file we have, because that would take a certain amount of computer savvy/initiative that they don't seem to possess.) I even wondered if a kind soul over there would convert the file for them, so they didn't have to wait for us to do it for them. Sure enough, it showed up last night, about 7:30EST. Which would make it about 3 hours after we uploaded the clip on Daily Motion. Now, perhaps the timing is just a coincidence- perhaps molsongrrrl was working on converting the Rogue Films clip and not ours, at the same time RomanMachine was pretty much doing the same. You can understand my scepticism though, yes? However, let's give that concession and say it was just a coincidence. Are we to believe that this clip was found entirely independently of MandanaFC unearthing it? Think about it- this clip is at least 7 years old. The exact same age as the recognized official fansite. And we haven't heard one single word about it on that official fansite in 7 years. (I'm sure Mandana just forgot to mention it during one of the many chats she has with Sara and Jayne. ) Are we to believe someone from that message board, which is run by the same people who haven't uttered a single word about "Occasional, Strong" in 7 years, just happened to stumble upon it the same time the FC did? No, of course not- they either lurk here or they visit MJFC and found the information. Just as toniM did; who, regardless of the rather backhanded way she went about it, at least gave the FC credit when she posted the information. Please don't misunderstand me, it has nothing to do with the clip being made available on that message board (and at some point in the near/distant future, on mjnet). I've said it many many times in the past that this is exactly what fandom is about- fans sharing information. This is all about simple netiquette. Let's recap: - we found the information.
- we tried to track down the clip originally.
- we contacted Rogue Films.
- we posted the link when RF put up the clip.
- we found a way to download the clip.
All of which we shared with everyone publically (and acknowledged the source!). We did the work and it's been poached without a single thanks or acknowledgement to the original source. Of course, why did I expect anything else? Considering the webfolk who run Splodgy, it's not hard to believe that their influence/actions/face-slapping would trickle down to their members.
|
|
|
Post by jilly2000 on May 15, 2008 11:40:57 GMT -5
Come on molsongrrrl. Do the decent thing and give credit to mandanafc for OS. It's not too late. Both Coolbyrne and Romanmachine are the original finders of this short movie. Otherwise you're just another thief.
|
|
|
Post by romanmachine on May 15, 2008 13:14:15 GMT -5
Come on molsongrrrl. Do the decent thing and give credit to mandanafc for OS. It's not too late. Both Coolbyrne and Romanmachine are the original finders of this short movie. Otherwise you're just another thief. That would be nice, Jilly, but integrity doesn't seem to exist over there, as evidenced by the pathetic attempt to defend Molsongrrl's honor. Anyone with eyes (hell, you don't even need both. Just one would do!) can see that her file is not the same as the one from the Rogue Films site. Unless, of course, Rogue decided to put the film up for download...right after they ruined the aspect ratio and doubled the file size. I'm sure they would do that to their own production. Oh and Hi, Jeanna. I used Orbit Downloader to get the original video file. What program did you use? ;D
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 15, 2008 17:32:43 GMT -5
Jeanna:"That other site"? Has "mandanafc" become the internet equivalent of "that Scottish play"? ;D (That paragraph, by the by, needs a "no periods were harmed in the making of this paragraph" notice at the beginning. Or at the very least a, "take a deep breath" warning.) You couldn't get it to run fully on that other site? This is a bit confusing. You couldn't get it to run fully from the FC? But we don't have the video on the FC. If you don't mean Rogue Films, you must mean from Daily Motion. So either you tried to download it from Daily Motion (as you seem to do from YouTube) and for whatever reason, couldn't get that to work, or you're talking about a failed attempt at Rogue Films. I'm confused. (This is what happens when you try the vague route instead of simply coming right out and listing sources/names/ credit.) But luckily, you found it again yesterday, on the Rogue Films site and it worked this time... what? Again I ask, where did you try to steal convert it the first time? From Daily Motion or from Rogue Films? And why in the world would you try and convert it from the Daily Motion clip (if that's what you attempted the first time), when the original clip has always been on Rogue Films? The original link was broken, but it took all of 10 seconds to get to the clip the "long" way round- "enter", "more", "shorts". You couldn't download it as an flv file? But that's exactly what the Daily Motion (equivalent to YouTube) file is that we downloaded. I'm glad to hear that you were able to "find(ing) it again yesterday on the Rogue site" (even though, as mentioned, it was there all along) and somehow magically download it as an flv file even though you couldn't do it in the days prior. Interesting that you used the word "again". This seems to imply that you did try and download it from Rogue Films the first few failed flv attempts. There, I fixed that for you. For the record, this is what we're talking about when our jaws drop at the inexplicable praise and congratulations that gets lavished on people who not only don't give credit, but work their computer "wiz"ardry in the most un-user, un-flattering way imagineable. Here's a screenshot of our copy, which we uploaded to Daily Motion: This is a screenshot of the avi file molsongrrrl converted (from who knows where): No, your eyes aren't deceiving you and no, we didn't do any computer tricks to make it look like that. You can tell by the size of the buttons that the players are exactly the same size- it's what's in them that's different. Reminds me of the end shots of all those old spaghetti westerns. Does anyone else remember those? "Shot in Techniscope!!" LOL!
|
|
|
Post by romanmachine on May 15, 2008 17:41:31 GMT -5
Please try not to get distracted by the awesomeness that is Fernando Torres in the background of those screenshots. I know you can only see a little of him, but that's usually all that defenders get to see of him, too, and he confused them 33 times this year! ;D
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 15, 2008 17:50:06 GMT -5
That's not Christiano Ronaldo? No, I didn't even notice, because quite frankly, I keep scrolling up, down, then back up again, thinking, "Is this an optical illusion? Is the bottom really that much smaller or is it my eyes that are playing comparison tricks on me?" Then I see the size of everything else on the players and realize, no- that really IS how the second shot looks! Then my eyes beg me to stop looking, because it's one hell of a damn strain.
|
|
|
Post by romanmachine on May 15, 2008 18:01:05 GMT -5
That's not Christiano Ronaldo? That's the dealbreaker!! I have to admit, my jaw dropped when the file started playing. I know some people like to re-encode files into what they think will be better quality formats, without realizing that it won't do any good if the original file is low quality to begin with, but it was the size & screwy aspect ratio that really got me. Granted, I'm only a novice at audio/video, but, if there was a valid reason for re-encoding the original, I certainly can't see it.
|
|
|
Post by topcat on May 16, 2008 3:08:35 GMT -5
Ok everyone. Nice big deep breaths. In...out....in.....out... To be honest, it is no more than I expected from the sycophants and pretend Mandana fans who post on that site these days. This is a post on 14th April 08 by the very same poster who is now claiming credit over there for the Occasional Strong find: Now, this 'fan' has been a registered member for over 12 months. How hard did she look FFS? You only have to put Mandana's name into youtube and almost every appearance is there. Anyway, let them get on with it. I have decided to no longer bother with the site. There is nothing new on there. It's never updated. There is the very rare communication of work but I think this site is just as likely to be on the ball with seeking out appearances. Why bump up their visitor numbers? They have no real interest in Mandana the actress. That is clear from the backhanded comment about her 'playing a hetro' to comments about her giving the same looks as she did to 'Helen'. Hmm well, she is an actress and a person who has facial expressions no matter what the role. If she's playing 'love' she will use her 'love' facial expressions NO MATTER WHAT ACTOR is opposite her. She is also a chameleon. Maybe that is why her other work is so hard to find . They are looking for Nikki Wade and she ain't there
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 16, 2008 5:35:17 GMT -5
I think you're right, top. This is pretty much the line drawn in the sand where they couldn't possibly do anything more to exemplify the underhanded, manipulative, deceptive and outright liars they are.
In fact, with the FC update on either Sunday or Monday, I'm also going to close this thread. So if anyone has anything to say, either in defence of that board or not, you have the weekend to do so.
|
|
|
Post by topcat on May 16, 2008 6:37:22 GMT -5
In fact, with the FC update on either Sunday or Monday, I'm also going to close this thread. So if anyone has anything to say, either in defence of that board or not, you have the weekend to do so. I think that is the positive way forward. It is clear that posters over there visit here. It could be: 1. just to see what is posted about their beloved Splodgy 2. because they admire Mandana and want to see and enjoy what is posted here 3. because they know there is more likely to be an update/something new Whatever, I think we need to just do what we do. If they want to be underhanded, moneygrabbing and give the impression that they hold the keys to The Mandana Fandom - let them. We are certainly never going to change their attitude nor the opinion of those who fall for it all. That is evident from this latest episode. However, I suggest that, in future, any information regarding work or whatever that is posted on that site should be posted over here without any thanks or acknowledgement of source.
|
|
|
Post by jilly2000 on May 16, 2008 10:25:45 GMT -5
What is most offensive is these webmzes using MJ's name in their usernames. To give the impression they are so dedicated to her. When in reality they've shoo shooed, squeezed out and banned so many MJ fans. And their crime? Posting pro Nikki/Mandana comments. Haranguing and hounding the posters and dropping very subtle hints to make the posts more balanced. In other words. If you post anything favorable about Nikki/Mandana don't forget their luvvie. It really annoys me to see MJ's name being usurped by these haters. ;D
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 19, 2008 16:56:22 GMT -5
For the record, it's interesting to note that this thread- as of this post- has been read 2,101 times. Anyway. As I mentioned earlier in the week, this thread is now closed, because quite frankly, what more can be said? In the short span of time we've been aware of mj.net (or "Splodgy") and its related message boards, we've learned the following: - they need £75 per month in order to run websites that lay dormant for months at a time, and for a message board that is actually free.
- they inflate their own sense of self-importance as it relates to Mandana Jones by insinuating a more active and personal relationship than what actually exists between them.
- they disguise the reality of the above by shutting up people who find things before they do (ie. Enzo's name, MJ's appearance at a soap award show, etc.)
- they hide the reality of the same above to other posters by blatantly stealing information from other sites and then passing it off as their own findings (which they heard directly from CAM or Mandana, of course :.
Etc., etc., ad nauseum. Or at least, 10 pages worth of etc. And while that's just the tip of the iceburg, it's also enough.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Dec 20, 2008 13:08:43 GMT -5
Opening this very briefly, not to rant or moan, but to offer some advice to anyone associated with creating/maintaining the mj.net website. The new colour is nice and we like the line down the middle on the homepage which separates the boxes of news. However, this line is also there on every other page, even when the text goes right across the page. (See: your The Bill page) Here's how to fix it- the line is part of the image in the "body_bg.gif". What you need to do is photoshop the line out, and label it "body_bg2.gif". Then- and here it's a bit tricky- you need to copy the style.css page as "style2.css". You'll get something like this. (Which doesn't suit the homepage, of course, but will spruce up the other pages.) Then on every new page, you need to go into the code and change all the "style.css" to "style2.css". Or, conversely, if it doesn't confuse too much, rename "body_bg.gif" as "body_bg2.gif", re-do "body_bg.gif" in photoshop, follow our advice for "style.css" and use THAT for the homepage (that is to say, "body_bg2.gif" with the line, and "style2.css") and keep the other ("body_bg.gif" and "style.css") for all your other pages. I know this all sounds a bit confusing to the non-web designers, but I know you have experience with codes and whatnot.
|
|