This is topic Clarification and commendation in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002387
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2000, 05:26 PM:
 
I would like to try and clear up a misunderstanding that has been growing week after week and commend a few people at the same time.

It's amazing, but there seems to be quite a bit of confusion with Joe and Film-Tech. He does not run this site. He does not work for Film-Tech and never has. He is not on the payroll and has never made a cent from us. He is just a regular forum member who has been around probably longer than 99% of anyone else here. He also writes product reviews for the site, which of course I'm sure everyone knows. He writes the reviews for personal satisfaction and the only "compensation" he gets from them is recognition within the industry. It's amazing the impact his reviews have made on people. Think about it, who doesn't know who Joe Redifer is from those reviews? -

I say this because apparently there is much confusion on the site about who runs it and who is a Film-Tech employee. Joe has volunteered much of his free time to help the site grow (he was the one who started touching up the pictures in the warehouse and resizing them so they would load faster) and has offered countless suggestions, many of which have been implemented on the site. I constantly get lots of emails sent to the "Flix" address starting out with "Dear Joe". The only theory we have come up with is that because the only name listed anywhere on this site is his (up until a few weeks ago), that Film-Tech is Joe Redifer. In the end though, he is just a regular projectionist at a regular theater just like most other people here...with a very characteristic sense of humor, which everyone seems to love based upon the fan mail from his reviews. These situations make him a perfect person to evaluate products "in the field" with REAL field situations and operators. There are no "bench tests" done on his reviews. What matters is the final result as is apparent by watching and listening. Also, since he has no financial interest in Film-Tech nor any other company in the cinema industry, his reviews are honest, unbiased and REAL.

The purpose of this post is not to degrade Joe's involvement with the site in any way. With the amount of email coming in that is always addressed to Mr. Redifer but has content that is not intended for Mr. Redifer, I thought it was time to make some form of clarifiation. At the same time, I wanted to publicly say "thank you Joe for all of your hard work you have put into the site!"

It has also been quite a while since I publicly thanked Mr. Ken Layton for egging me on to create a free manual downloads directory. Thanks to Ken, tens of thousands of manuals have been downloaded over the last several months. With that sort of activity, that proves he was right and that the availability of these manuals are something that was desperatly needed within the industry.

Finally, let's not forget Mr. Scott Norwood for putting in an awful lot of hard time into setting up this server with me. Scott is a UNIX geek and his work is already beginning to be shown off with the speed of the site. Everyone give a nice big thanks to Scott.

By the way, if anyone would like to be a "guest reviewer" for a month, I'm sure Joe wouldn't mind getting a break from writing a monthly column every now and then. -

 
Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 08-04-2000, 09:17 PM:
 
Sounds good to me, Brad. The roles are defined and all of you guys are key to the site.


 

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-05-2000, 01:54 AM:
 
I could never write a review as good as Joe. It would be technically accurate, but totally boring. Joe's are interesting, accurate, and once in a while, funny as hell!

Thanks Joe!
 

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-05-2000, 03:27 AM:
 
Interesting. I didn't know it was that rampant. Usually the e-mail I get addressed to the film-tech.com address is about the reviews or some dumb comment I made, etc... I guess it went even deeper than that!

But Brad is right, I do not run the site. I have attempted many hostile takeovers and other such conquerings of the site, but am always overthrown. But one day I will power all of Film-Tech, then you all shall bow before me!! But seriously though, I don't even know how to code for HTML or UBB. I could always learn, but that's not my bag. The picture warehouse is probably my biggest contribution. The reviews are fun to write, but sometimes I run out of stuff to review or I am just not in the mood. I don't always meet the "deadline". I am not a writer. But if I do it, I might as well have fun with it

Anyway, thanks for the compliments. I wish I could give the super techs the bench marks that they lust for in my reviews, but I certainly don't have the equipment to do that. Maybe there should be a high-brow technical magazine called "Movietheaterboothstuff-o-phile", kinda like "Stereophile".


 

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-18-2003, 01:27 AM:
 
I'm not sure why this came up when I searched for "dumb comment", but it was fun to read anyway.

So *bump*!

Thanks more recently to Daryl C. W. O'Shea for dealing with all the shit we've thrown at him recently. [thumbsup] What's that C. W. stand for, anyway? [Razz]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-18-2003, 02:25 AM:
 
-

Welcome to the year 2000, Adam! [Smile]

PS - I know HTML now.

PSS - No such e-mail as "joeblows@film-tech.com". It no longer exists.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-18-2003, 02:28 AM:
 
Yeah that's right Adam, dredge up some 3 year old discussion and make everyone re-read it thinking that this is something current. [Roll Eyes]

Since both of Scott's UNIX servers blew up, we are now on SuperDaryl's Windows systems and we no longer use VI! If anyone deserves a thank you in today's timeframe it is Daryl. All of the automated stuff in the forums and such are compliments of Daryl's superhuman brain. [thumbsup] Come on Scott, tell us how it was a "hardware problem". hehe [evil] [Razz]

(Seriously, Scott is fantastic in the world of servers and helped this site out a lot.)
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-18-2003, 02:53 AM:
 
Three years and two weeks! [evil] Glad I could help.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-18-2003, 06:41 PM:
 
Jesus was BLACK ???
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-18-2003, 07:11 PM:
 
And Irish.

(Moving to Yak)
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-18-2003, 08:03 PM:
 
Reading the first post in this thread reminded me of the thread we had a couple years ago when many people were joking that Joe was an alter-ego of Brad and they were the same person. Remember, film-tech did not have pictures of the members then. I think it was joked about so much that some people actually believed it for a while. I admit I believed it for a few hours when I found that "Joe Redifer" was almost an anagram of "Jedi Forever" (the "v" messes it up).
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-18-2003, 09:02 PM:
 
Evans , We had it backward years ago when Joe was Brad.In reality

Brad is Joe. Thank you for helping me to clear this up.

Does this mean Brad or Joe is opening the http://film-tech.com

store?
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 08-18-2003, 09:19 PM:
 
Joe isn't Brad??? Huh? Now I'm totally confused. All those emails I sent to Flix@film-tech.com don't go to Joe? But Joe IS Brad...right? [uhoh]
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2