Betamax digitizing help of a rare film.

[LetThemEatCake]

I've encountered people like this in almost every forum I go to who just like old crusty stuff, old VHS quality with linear audio because HiFi stereo is a devil, dirty faded scratched films ..etc, It's all part of the beauty of the medium, There is a guy at an audio forum who hates Stereo audio, FM and digital audio, according to him AM radio and dull mono audio sound way better than anything else. People like these enjoy the limitation of the medium rather than the material itself so they will never be happy with anything that looks or sounds better.

that is not my case at all, I want to see classic films as they are, not optimized, destructive versions of the original work, but I will say this, you are what I call, a hardware fanatic. It's all about the hardware, it's all about what the machine can do, never about the actual art. Never. So again, you have plenty of Jason Statham movies that are specifically made for such hardware. Go see those. There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

[johnmeyer]

There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

Since it appears that you don't own any projectors, then the only way you'll see a film at home is via video. News flash: the act of telecine (older process) and/or digitizing film both massively alter what was on the film. In addition, since film has a different gamut than any form of video (SD, HD, 4K; NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc., etc.) you will always get significant shifts in the gamma transfer function.

So "no need at all for older films to be altered in any way" is a complete impossibility, if you are going to watch them at home; they will be altered a LOT, no matter how the transfer is done.

In all seriousness, you really should invest in a projector and begin screening your own movie. I don't know what's available in Panama, but in many places you can rent actual movie film and show it yourself:

http://www.reelclassics.com/Buy/films.htm

[dellsam34]

Good burn John, Yeah he doesn't want his films altered by scanning them into 4k/6k/8k and restored, But there is no such alteration if downscaled to analog video, cut up and butchered and compressed down to DVD or online download. Pretty funny.

[johnmeyer]

Good burn John, Yeah he doesn't want his films altered by scanning them into 4k/6k/8k and restored, But there is no such alteration if downscaled to analog video, cut up and butchered and compressed down to DVD or online download. Pretty funny.

That's an even better way of putting it. The thinking does seem to be both muddled and inconsistent.

[lordsmurf]

The twitter thread has NOT been deleted, it's still there and can still be seen,

It seems Twitter was fubar last night. The posts are still there. However, it's still largely misguided ramblings.

There are a few disconcerting sample images, showing line loss, but I'm not sure what the source of those images are. Given how others appear to be capped from the Disney mini-docu, those may be nothing more than pre-final product. The complaints about degrain are just minority preference, and grain really does not add anything of value to animation.

These films ARE being redrawn, and repainted and the process

That's not what is happening. You need to actually watch the Disney video about how the process is done. I have a feeling you've just read the rant tweets, and not the actual overview of how the process is done.

Good burn John, Yeah he doesn't want his films altered

I don't want my cartoon altered. Film is destructive. Please give me the original hand-drawn animation cels, so I can make my own flip book.

[LetThemEatCake]

There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

Since it appears that you don't own any projectors, then the only way you'll see a film at home is via video. News flash: the act of telecine (older process) and/or digitizing film both massively alter what was on the film. In addition, since film has a different gamut than any form of video (SD, HD, 4K; NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc., etc.) you will always get significant shifts in the gamma transfer function.

So "no need at all for older films to be altered in any way" is a complete impossibility, if you are going to watch them at home; they will be altered a LOT, no matter how the transfer is done.

In all seriousness, you really should invest in a projector and begin screening your own movie. I don't know what's available in Panama, but in many places you can rent actual movie film and show it yourself:

http://www.reelclassics.com/Buy/films.htm

this is nothing but lies.

[LetThemEatCake]

The twitter thread has NOT been deleted, it's still there and can still be seen,

It seems Twitter was fubar last night. The posts are still there. However, it's still largely misguided ramblings.

There are a few disconcerting sample images, showing line loss, but I'm not sure what the source of those images are. Given how others appear to be capped from the Disney mini-docu, those may be nothing more than pre-final product. The complaints about degrain are just minority preference, and grain really does not add anything of value to animation.

These films ARE being redrawn, and repainted and the process

That's not what is happening. You need to actually watch the Disney video about how the process is done. I have a feeling you've just read the rant tweets, and not the actual overview of how the process is done.

Good burn John, Yeah he doesn't want his films altered

I don't want my cartoon altered. Film is destructive. Please give me the original hand-drawn animation cels, so I can make my own flip book.

that is exactly what is happening, and again, you are just so far up the hardware salesman dogma there is no way of getting through, no matter how much proof there is.

[LetThemEatCake]

Good burn John, Yeah he doesn't want his films altered by scanning them into 4k/6k/8k and restored, But there is no such alteration if downscaled to analog video, cut up and butchered and compressed down to DVD or online download. Pretty funny.

this is just a loaded and innacurate statement in order to deligitimize my claims and just further the hardware salesman dogma.

[LetThemEatCake]

Hello everyone, wanted to share screencaps of my digitized first edition VHS of Vertigo, back when it was first released without any restoration done. Yes, the print used was clearly deteriorated, but not so that you can't distinguish how the film fundamentally should look. Fundamentaly is really the key word here, because deterioration is not going to make a film with a certain color temperature have an entirely different temperature or brightness as it now does on the available bluray. If you see this you can see the initial sequence was brighter and warmer, the colors are not oversaturated which is what they want to sell now, the iconic hotel sign scene is actually blue and not green, and judy's hair is brown and not red. This is actually consistent with the original trailer, which advertises her character as a 'mysterious brunette', not a redhead. This is also the Muir conducted soundtrack, which has now been lost forever to a stepford digitized version.


[Attachment 50111 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50112 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50114 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50119 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50120 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50121 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50122 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50123 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50124 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50125 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50126 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50127 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50128 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50129 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50130 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50131 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50132 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50133 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 50134 - Click to enlarge]

[smrpix]

Hello everyone, wanted to share screencaps of my digitized first edition VHS of Vertigo, back when it was first released without any restoration done.

Where did the left and right sides of the VistaVision frame go?

[LetThemEatCake]

Hello everyone, wanted to share screencaps of my digitized first edition VHS of Vertigo, back when it was first released without any restoration done.

Where did the left and right sides of the VistaVision frame go?

way to miss the whole point.

[lordsmurf]

no matter how much proof there is.

What proof? All I see in raving lunatic mind vomit (aka tweets), with a few random images that appear to be lifted from unknown sources.

BTW, this is the artist that left the tweets: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sduignan
In the grand scheme of things, he's a random nobody. Merely a 20-something barely out of college, working a small dub house in Ireland. His opinion carries zero weight with me. It's not like he's a former Disney artist, or some other luminary in the animation field. He surely has some degree of talent, since he got a job in his field (kudos to him), but the fact that Yahoo News made his mind vomit tweets into a news piece was ridiculous. It was not newsworthy whatsoever. I detest the term, but this is "fake news".

Aside from those tweets, I literally cannot find any complaints about this Blu-ray anywhere. Not even Amazon, where people love to gripe and moan over everything. No discussions on any forums that I can find.

Hello everyone, wanted to share screencaps of my digitized first edition VHS of Vertigo

Show us a clip.

FYI: I'm betting it's full of chroma noise and timing errors. I see it in the stills, but only a clip will show if was removed, repressed, or unaddressed. If unaddressed, color correction is the least problem here.

[LetThemEatCake]

Hello everyone, this is my digitized VHS of Vertigo, you can download the file here in case you want to see it: https://wetransfer.com/downloads/00674f97a9009b718da6488edf0add2f20190914051716/cd400f...4051716/9a6101

this is the film as it existed in 1984 when it was finally re-released after not having been seen for 20 years.

Also, I would like to add that the general public does not know that restoration actually means revised and destroyed. They do not know this is what's actually happening to beloved classic films. If they knew, they'd go all New Coke on the hometheater industry.

[LetThemEatCake]

no matter how much proof there is.

What proof? All I see in raving lunatic mind vomit (aka tweets), with a few random images that appear to be lifted from unknown sources.

BTW, this is the artist that left the Tweets: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sduignan
In the grand scheme of things, he's a random nobody. Merely a 20-something barely out of college, working a small dub house in Ireland. His opinion carries zero weight with me. It's not like he's a former Disney artist, or some other luminary in the animation field. He surely has some degree of talent, since he got a job in his field (kudos to him), but the fact that Yahoo News made his mind vomit tweets into a news piece was ridiculous. It was not newsworthy whatsoever. I detest the term, but this is "fake news".

Aside from those tweets, I literally cannot find any complaints about this Blu-ray anywhere. Not even Amazon, where people love to gripe and moan over everything. No discussions on any forums that I can find.

And a salesman's opinion is carries more weight? Are you being payed by these hardware companies? Because no one can be this removed from reality.

[LetThemEatCake]

FYI: I'm betting it's full of chroma noise and timing errors. I see it in the stills, but only a clip will show if was removed, repressed, or unaddressed. If unaddressed, color correction is the least problem here.

yes it is and so what? doesn't invalidate my points regarding coloring in the slightest. It doesn't even challenge my points on the audio either. You are seriously delusional and in love with hardware. I won't respond to you any longer.

[poisondeathray]

There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

Since it appears that you don't own any projectors, then the only way you'll see a film at home is via video. News flash: the act of telecine (older process) and/or digitizing film both massively alter what was on the film. In addition, since film has a different gamut than any form of video (SD, HD, 4K; NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc., etc.) you will always get significant shifts in the gamma transfer function.

So "no need at all for older films to be altered in any way" is a complete impossibility, if you are going to watch them at home; they will be altered a LOT, no matter how the transfer is done.

this is nothing but lies.

Actually, that part is true .

Modern high end camera sensors and imaging systems have surpassed film in terms of latitude and dynamic range . Film might have ~13 stops if you believe Kodak. High end camera imaging systems can achieve 16-17 now (in realty it's closer to 14-15 usable, but it's still greater than film ) . This is confirmed by scientific testing, dxomark, actual usage, go ahead and believe otherwise or disagree with Kodak if you want.

But the problem is modern consumer displays cannot display either film , or high end digital acquisition in their proper glory. A typical HD display (Rec709) might only be able to effectively display 6 stops. Newer UHD, HDR displays maybe 10-11 stops. (No I'm not a TV salesman )

In order to capture all the data of (celluoid) film during the digitization process, it's scanned a log format. Film holds a lot of data. You need a log transfer function to capture all those glorious highlight and shadow detail . But as a result of the log curve , the actual scan looks very flat, very desaturated to capture everything. The problem is you have to "squish" all that data to display on a modern Rec601 (for DVD), Rec709 (for BD), or 2020 display if UHDBD . So all films are graded. The actual filmscan looks nothing like you see in a theatre or TV, or internet, or UHDBD/BD/DVD. There is no such thing as "leaving it as is". The end look is the result of some colorist making a decision along with the director, possibly the EP's .

The alternative would scanning a film with a distribution curve "baked" in. This means you lose about 50% of the information right off the bat. You'd also have to make separate scans for different targets, one for DCI, one for BD, etc.. That's why it never happens ($) . The flat log scan captures pretty much everything and you can grade for different targets - flexibility is the key. "Baked in" is opposite of flexible, and you're potentially losing a lot of the film data

The point you are trying to make is you dislike with the grading of these "remasters" or "restorations" and that's fine.

Consumers won't have access to the film scans, but if a BD version is not clipped in channels, no crushed data, you still have lots of flexibility in grading it however you like.

[lordsmurf]

doesn't invalidate my points regarding coloring in the slightest.

But it kinda does. Chroma errors = color errors. You can't grade properly when color is unstable.

And a salesman's opinion is carries more weight? Are you being payed by these hardware companies? Because no one can be this removed from reality.

So anybody here that doesn't agree with you is a "hardware salesman"? Well, alrighty then. But I don't even know what that's supposed to imply.

Funny enough, I do actually sell a few extra VCRs, capture cards, and TBCs right now. But if that makes me a salesman, then I'm apparently everything from a used book salesman (eBay) to a used lawnmower salesman (Craigslist).

[LetThemEatCake]

There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

Since it appears that you don't own any projectors, then the only way you'll see a film at home is via video. News flash: the act of telecine (older process) and/or digitizing film both massively alter what was on the film. In addition, since film has a different gamut than any form of video (SD, HD, 4K; NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc., etc.) you will always get significant shifts in the gamma transfer function.

So "no need at all for older films to be altered in any way" is a complete impossibility, if you are going to watch them at home; they will be altered a LOT, no matter how the transfer is done.

this is nothing but lies.

Actually, that part is true .

Modern high end camera sensors and imaging systems have surpassed film in terms of latitude and dynamic range . Film might have ~13 stops if you believe Kodak. High end camera imaging systems can achieve 16-17 now (in realty it's closer to 14-15 usable, but it's still greater than film ) . This is confirmed by scientific testing, dxomark, actual usage, go ahead and believe otherwise or disagree with Kodak if you want.

But the problem is modern consumer displays cannot display either film , or high end digital acquisition in their proper glory. A typical HD display (Rec709) might only be able to effectively display 6 stops. Newer UHD, HDR displays maybe 10-11 stops. (No I'm not a TV salesman )

In order to capture all the data of (celluoid) film during the digitization process, it's scanned a log format. Film holds a lot of data. You need a log transfer function to capture all those glorious highlight and shadow detail . But as a result of the log curve , the actual scan looks very flat, very desaturated to capture everything. The problem is you have to "squish" all that data to display on a modern Rec601 (for DVD), Rec709 (for BD), or 2020 display if UHDBD . So all films are graded. The actual filmscan looks nothing like you see in a theatre or TV, or internet, or UHDBD/BD/DVD. There is no such thing as "leaving it as is". The end look is the result of some colorist making a decision along with the director, possibly the EP's .

The alternative would scanning a film with a distribution curve "baked" in. This means you lose about 50% of the information right off the bat. You'd also have to make separate scans for different targets, one for DCI, one for BD, etc.. That's why it never happens ($) . The flat log scan captures pretty much everything and you can grade for different targets - flexibility is the key. "Baked in" is opposite of flexible, and you're potentially losing a lot of the film data

The point you are trying to make is you dislike with the grading of these "remasters" or "restorations" and that's fine.

Consumers won't have access to the film scans, but if a BD version is not clipped in channels, no crushed data, you still have lots of flexibility in grading it however you like.

This makes telecine sound much better. I guess you have a point because scanned negatives always needed to be saturated and contrasted on photoshop. One more reason why analog is way better, even though the darkroom changed so much too, but not like this.

[smrpix]

This makes telecine sound much better. I guess you have a point because scanned negatives always needed to be saturated and contrasted on photoshop. One more reason why analog is way better, even though the darkroom changed so much too, but not like this.

Analog film was always graded too. Eastmancolor negative, like that used in "Cleopatra" also recorded a flatter, duller image than that which was projected. Positive prints were always higher contrast and always dropped out several stops of information. One thing about 5250 (or its 65mm equivalent,) is that the color tended to be very stable.

[johnmeyer]

There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

Since it appears that you don't own any projectors, then the only way you'll see a film at home is via video. News flash: the act of telecine (older process) and/or digitizing film both massively alter what was on the film. In addition, since film has a different gamut than any form of video (SD, HD, 4K; NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc., etc.) you will always get significant shifts in the gamma transfer function.

So "no need at all for older films to be altered in any way" is a complete impossibility, if you are going to watch them at home; they will be altered a LOT, no matter how the transfer is done.

In all seriousness, you really should invest in a projector and begin screening your own movie. I don't know what's available in Panama, but in many places you can rent actual movie film and show it yourself:

http://www.reelclassics.com/Buy/films.htm

this is nothing but lies.

OK, this has got to stop. The part I put in bold is his response to my attempt to explain (which I kept in full) why any movie must be altered when it is transferred from celluloid to videotape or digital.

The above long quote is from post #186. Then in his very next post (#187), in response to Lordsmurf, he says:

that is exactly what is happening, and again, you are just so far up the hardware salesman dogma there is no way of getting through, no matter how much proof there is.

And then in post #188, in response to dellsam34:

this is just a loaded and innacurate statement in order to deligitimize my claims and just further the hardware salesman dogma.

Every single one of these people (including me) started out trying to help this troll, and now it has come to this.

To the moderators: this person has been making the exact same posts, almost verbatim, in other forums, for the last three years. I don't normally do this, but I think it is important to know what we're dealing with so that all of us don't keep wasting our time. I sure have wasted a lot, sincerely trying to help this person, as I did in the post I quoted.

It has already been mentioned in this thread that he has been doing the same thing on the TCM site. Here is one example of that:

Is A Shorter Version Of Cleopatra Possible?If you look at any of that thread, you'll see it eerily resembles all the posts in this one. What's more, it was done three years ago!

Then, in May 2018, he got banned from hometheaterforum.com when he went into multiple threads and either took them OT to talk about "Cleopatra," or to question the quality of pretty much any attempt to transfer or restore any film and put it in DVD or BD:

RAINTREE COUNTY on Blu?

He also repeatedly made statements that the moderator deemed to be opinion masquerading as facts (just like in this thread), and the moderator warned him that he should not be so dismissive of what others have said. I very much like how this moderator handled it, and the same exact thing could be said here:

Moderator Warning

You can read his other 56 posts in that forum, and they will seem very, very familiar to you, especially if you scroll down and read his response to the moderator's warning. Sound familiar?

Then there was this, over in Blu-Ray.com, where he dove into a 38-page epic thread about -- you guessed it -- the Cleopatra restoration:

Cleopatra (1963) (50th Anniversary Edition)

That was from May of 2017.

And oh yes, he also got banned from this site after only twenty-four posts.

I have other things to do, so I would not be surprised to find that he has posted at more than these four forums (I'm including videohelp.com in my count).

Everyone, including the moderators, can make their own decision on whether to continue this increasingly pointless exercise, but having now discovered all these facts, I'm going to do something else.

[DB83]

What really has to stop, and he has been quite politely asked to do so, if the excessive quoting in his replies.

That, itself, really should warrant a warning from the mods as it does elsewhere.

Is he trolling ? Posts created for an argumentative reaction can qualify in that regard.

Has he been abusive ? That can also be considered correct.

But the mods here are quite tolerant. As I, and others, have stated I want the thread to continue. But I would still prefer he takes heed of the points raised and, basically, just bring the thread back to the OP if and when he finally gets to see that shorter cut.

[Brad]

Links to communities where OP's opinions may be more welcomed. If he can sort out his attitude.

https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1109021/action/topic#1109021 (lines removed from Cinderella BD)
https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Lion-King-1994-35-mm/id/68630


https://forum.fanres.com/thread-223.html?highlight=hitch****
https://forum.fanres.com/thread-2771.html

[dellsam34]

It is definitely trolling, I'm out and I hope everyone else should opt out since there is no way to reason with this individual.

[LetThemEatCake]

There is no need at all for older films to be altered in any way so that you can appreciate in them with your hardware something that was never in them in the first place.

Since it appears that you don't own any projectors, then the only way you'll see a film at home is via video. News flash: the act of telecine (older process) and/or digitizing film both massively alter what was on the film. In addition, since film has a different gamut than any form of video (SD, HD, 4K; NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc., etc.) you will always get significant shifts in the gamma transfer function.

So "no need at all for older films to be altered in any way" is a complete impossibility, if you are going to watch them at home; they will be altered a LOT, no matter how the transfer is done.

In all seriousness, you really should invest in a projector and begin screening your own movie. I don't know what's available in Panama, but in many places you can rent actual movie film and show it yourself:

http://www.reelclassics.com/Buy/films.htm

this is nothing but lies.

OK, this has got to stop. The part I put in bold is his response to my attempt to explain (which I kept in full) why any movie must be altered when it is transferred from celluloid to videotape or digital.

The above long quote is from post #186. Then in his very next post (#187), in response to Lordsmurf, he says:

that is exactly what is happening, and again, you are just so far up the hardware salesman dogma there is no way of getting through, no matter how much proof there is.

And then in post #188, in response to dellsam34:

this is just a loaded and innacurate statement in order to deligitimize my claims and just further the hardware salesman dogma.

Every single one of these people (including me) started out trying to help this troll, and now it has come to this.

To the moderators: this person has been making the exact same posts, almost verbatim, in other forums, for the last three years. I don't normally do this, but I think it is important to know what we're dealing with so that all of us don't keep wasting our time. I sure have wasted a lot, sincerely trying to help this person, as I did in the post I quoted.

It has already been mentioned in this thread that he has been doing the same thing on the TCM site. Here is one example of that:

Is A Shorter Version Of Cleopatra Possible?If you look at any of that thread, you'll see it eerily resembles all the posts in this one. What's more, it was done three years ago!

Then, in May 2018, he got banned from hometheaterforum.com when he went into multiple threads and either took them OT to talk about "Cleopatra," or to question the quality of pretty much any attempt to transfer or restore any film and put it in DVD or BD:

RAINTREE COUNTY on Blu?

He also repeatedly made statements that the moderator deemed to be opinion masquerading as facts (just like in this thread), and the moderator warned him that he should not be so dismissive of what others have said. I very much like how this moderator handled it, and the same exact thing could be said here:

Moderator Warning

You can read his other 56 posts in that forum, and they will seem very, very familiar to you, especially if you scroll down and read his response to the moderator's warning. Sound familiar?

Then there was this, over in Blu-Ray.com, where he dove into a 38-page epic thread about -- you guessed it -- the Cleopatra restoration:

Cleopatra (1963) (50th Anniversary Edition)

That was from May of 2017.

And oh yes, he also got banned from this site after only twenty-four posts.

I have other things to do, so I would not be surprised to find that he has posted at more than these four forums (I'm including videohelp.com in my count).

Everyone, including the moderators, can make their own decision on whether to continue this increasingly pointless exercise, but having now discovered all these facts, I'm going to do something else.

you seem to have a lot of time in your hands.

[LetThemEatCake]

This makes telecine sound much better. I guess you have a point because scanned negatives always needed to be saturated and contrasted on photoshop. One more reason why analog is way better, even though the darkroom changed so much too, but not like this.

Analog film was always graded too. Eastmancolor negative, like that used in "Cleopatra" also recorded a flatter, duller image than that which was projected. Positive prints were always higher contrast and always dropped out several stops of information. One thing about 5250 (or its 65mm equivalent,) is that the color tended to be very stable.

I always wondered about that, in the analog days, how would it be done? with pushing the developer? And why not just let the film as is? In the making Cleopatra documentary they show trims and costume test shots and they look just like the finished film. Would they be color timing those too?

[LetThemEatCake]

What's an IB print?

[smrpix]

You can google Hazeltine Timer and IB. There is an excellent explanation of IB at American Widescreen Museum.

[lordsmurf]

I very much like how this moderator handled it, and the same exact thing could be said here:

Unfortunately, something that must be realized is that trolls actually prey on those who insist on decorum. So while some folks may feel they're taking some mythical "high road" (which in itself is actually somewhat narcissistic, believing oneself to be above others), it's really not anything of the sort. I also find that the "high road" is a facade, because in actuality, the person saying it doesn't know how to deal with the bad behavior. We see this everywhere from politics to grade school.

No, people like this have to dealt more decisively. Responses to these folks can't be weak, watered-down, or mealy-mouthed.

What's an IB print?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbibition

[DB83]

On one of forums linked to above, the real first name of our friend is, apparently, revealed.

Today's puzzle. Re-arrange the letters R-A-M-O-N to reveal what the OP really is

PS If you do fight fire with fire it is often the case that the perpatrator goes in to 'victim' mode and reports the post.

For a few years, I was a mod. As the local sheriff all the bad guys were rounded up and put in to jail. Yet there was one guy who kept on coming back, complaining how hard he was being treated. In the end the Admin just let him alone and it was the sheriff that was driven out of town.

[LetThemEatCake]

On one of forums linked to above, the real first name of our friend is, apparently, revealed.

Today's puzzle. Re-arrange the letters R-A-M-O-N to reveal what the OP really is

PS If you do fight fire with fire it is often the case that the perpatrator goes in to 'victim' mode and reports the post.

For a few years, I was a mod. As the local sheriff all the bad guys were rounded up and put in to jail. Yet there was one guy who kept on coming back, complaining how hard he was being treated. In the end the Admin just let him alone and it was the sheriff that was driven out of town.

you just called me a moron. This is what you do, probe and prick and antagonize a person to get a reaction to then call them a troll, and that's the forum game, hence why they are dying, people don't care anymore to put up with the cliques.