Talk:Redacted - Revision history

Spartan198 at 23:11, 21 May 2017

2017-05-21T23:11:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 21 May 2017
Line 62:		Line 62:

	:: Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want. <br>Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special. <br> As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST)		:: Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want. <br>Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special. <br> As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST)

			== I really feel bad for the technical advisor(s) and armorer(s) on this film ==
			Many advisors and armorers are ex-military (Harry Humphries and Dale Dye, to name a couple examples), so I can imagine the ones working on this movie probably fought and fought to keep from pounding De Palma's face into mush. [[User:Spartan198\|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198\|talk]]) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Please don't hate me... */

2015-01-21T00:20:27Z

Please don't hate me...

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:20, 21 January 2015
Line 60:		Line 60:

	:As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)		:As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)

			:: Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want. <br>Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special. <br> As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Evil Tim: /* Please don't hate me... */

2015-01-20T07:51:27Z

Please don't hate me...

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:51, 20 January 2015
Line 58:		Line 58:

	First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site.		First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site.

			:As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)

1911isthebestgunever: /* Please don't hate me... */ new section

2015-01-20T06:28:17Z

Please don't hate me...: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 20 January 2015
Line 54:		Line 54:

	I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5		I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5

			== Please don't hate me... ==

			First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site.

Gunner5: /* Just a question... */

2013-03-24T03:23:25Z

Just a question...

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 24 March 2013
Line 53:		Line 53:
	== Just a question... ==		== Just a question... ==

	I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?		I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5

Gunner5: /* Just a question... */ new section

2013-03-24T03:22:30Z

Just a question...: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:22, 24 March 2013
Line 50:		Line 50:

	Since this was filmed in Jordan, most likely it's a local ''al-Hussein'' rather than a British Chally. They're got about four hundred of them. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 01:52, 3 April 2012 (CDT)		Since this was filmed in Jordan, most likely it's a local ''al-Hussein'' rather than a British Chally. They're got about four hundred of them. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 01:52, 3 April 2012 (CDT)

			== Just a question... ==

			I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?

Laqueesha: /* Intro */

2012-12-05T22:34:27Z

Intro

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 5 December 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:

	I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)		I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
	:I added an intro. [[User:Laqueesha\|Laqueesha]] ([[User talk:Laqueesha\|talk]]) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)		:I have added an intro. [[User:Laqueesha\|Laqueesha]] ([[User talk:Laqueesha\|talk]]) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

	== Page locked ==		== Page locked ==

Laqueesha: /* Intro */

2012-12-05T22:34:16Z

Intro

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 5 December 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:

	I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)		I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
			:I added an intro. [[User:Laqueesha\|Laqueesha]] ([[User talk:Laqueesha\|talk]]) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

	== Page locked ==		== Page locked ==

Evil Tim: /* Challenger */ new section

2012-04-03T06:52:48Z

Challenger: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 3 April 2012
Line 45:		Line 45:
	== Correction needed ==		== Correction needed ==
	The laser module on the second pic of an M4 is a AN/PAQ-4 visible laser. It's too small to be a PEQ-2. [[User:Spartan198\|Spartan198]] 23:23, 17 June 2011 (CDT)		The laser module on the second pic of an M4 is a AN/PAQ-4 visible laser. It's too small to be a PEQ-2. [[User:Spartan198\|Spartan198]] 23:23, 17 June 2011 (CDT)

			== Challenger ==

			Since this was filmed in Jordan, most likely it's a local ''al-Hussein'' rather than a British Chally. They're got about four hundred of them. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] 01:52, 3 April 2012 (CDT)

Spartan198 at 04:23, 18 June 2011

2011-06-18T04:23:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:23, 18 June 2011
Line 42:		Line 42:
	I noticed that the Type 56 is under the "Kalashnikov variants". I would not call it a "variant", and I am pretty sure neither would Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov. And since the page is locked, someone with access should move the AKM and the Type 56 apart. Thx. [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut\|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 16:22, 3 June 2011 (CDT)		I noticed that the Type 56 is under the "Kalashnikov variants". I would not call it a "variant", and I am pretty sure neither would Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov. And since the page is locked, someone with access should move the AKM and the Type 56 apart. Thx. [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut\|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 16:22, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
	:I locked it to keep from having to undo someone else's edits. It will be unlocked later. --[[User:Predator20\|Predator20]] 17:00, 3 June 2011 (CDT)		:I locked it to keep from having to undo someone else's edits. It will be unlocked later. --[[User:Predator20\|Predator20]] 17:00, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

			== Correction needed ==
			The laser module on the second pic of an M4 is a AN/PAQ-4 visible laser. It's too small to be a PEQ-2. [[User:Spartan198\|Spartan198]] 23:23, 17 June 2011 (CDT)