Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me
-- posted on March 27, 2006
There's a tempest in a teapot. There's a storm a-brewin'. Words have been spoken and gauntlets have been flung down. The site moderators are ~looking into it~. Oh, my.
You know what I think they should look into? Here's what I hope they do... maybe they could do what I did today, which was some very edifying reading. I went to a couple of people's profiles; I've already mentioned one in Happy's Anti-Awards blog, 2pac. He can't spell worth beans. He can't grammar either (haha... see, that's a joke, where I make fun of grammatical usage and do something "wrong" on purpose) and he doesn't even bother to hide his blatant plagiarism. He cut off the ends of the stuff he was cut 'n pasting from other sites. Great.
So then I went to Ross_99's profile and randomly picked some shows. I chose an old one (M*A*S*H) and a current one (CSI:NY) and took a look at them. The M*A*S*H guide is seriously lacking in summaries; however, the few that are there are ALL filled with spelling errors. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Now, I know Ross is oh, so busy and such a good contributor, but it just makes me wonder what he contributed to get the guide? There are no writers and/or directors listed. There are very few guest stars. He has a lot of guides, I get it... but ~why~ does he have a lot of guides? How long has he been editor for this one? How long have those bad summaries been there? Why hasn't he changed them yet? I understand he might not be prepared to work on it yet, but why hasn't he fixed the drivel that's there?
So... off I went to a current random show that he edits, CSI:NY. It has summaries. They are cut 'n pasted directly from the official site. I get newsletters from the Canadian station that shows it... so I have the exact same summaries in my email in-box. A quick google showed me that this was the case. The writers/directors and guest stars are listed. Of course, when you're out there plagiarizing the summaries, I guess it's not that hard to copy the other information as well. And I'm not talking about putting in a plagiarized (hey, let's call a thief a thief!) place-holder until the episode airs and you can write your own (which we're not supposed to be doing here anyway), I'm talking about every episode this season has a plagiarized, ie: STOLEN summary. This is Ross doing his wonderful contributions.
Next, I chose a random person... David Hewlett ('cause I don't know who he is, so I thought that would make me impartial.) He has no biography. He has basic factual info (dob, place of birth) and 21 Trivia items. Two of them are items that are in the "Credits" list, and so don't really belong in the Trivia items. Seven of them have spelling errors; six of them have grammatical errors.
Then... off to FullHouseDude's pathetic blog. Interesting reading there. Ross_99 has a similar one. It's the "Poor me! Alas! Woe!" blog. Oh, no one likes me, so I'm not going to come here any more! Now... I didn't study psychology, but I do recognize this as a pathetic cry for attention.
So I hope that TPTB read ~my~ blog. Then go and take a look at what I saw today. Cause if they want a "professional" site, they're not getting it by having these people as editors. And even worse is the fact that in one case, the person can contribute his plagiarized (aka: STOLEN) material and badly spelled/grammatically incorrect stuff unchecked.
Then, I hope that the site moderators, the Big Guys In The Sky, whoever they are, take a look at these people. They are whiners. They are unable to take criticism, claiming that it's just jealousy that is causing Happy (and the rest of us) to point out their errors. Who cares why it's being done? Fix the damn guides! And that is exactly what TPTB should be saying to them.
And stop writing your whiny blogs that are nothing more than pathetic cries for attention and praise that you don't deserve. You have to know that the only people telling you that you're great... well, let's face it... if someone looks at what you're doing and says it's great, obviously, that person just doesn't know what they're talking about. Their opinions aren't worth the paper that they're written on (see, I made another funny!) Comment >>