Credit Card Info or Cell Phone Number to Post on Message Board? Really?

Sorry, other forum members..lost my temper.

@LuvsToResearch: Well yeah, I want answers, by someone who's actually involved with IMDb, not some think-they-know-it-all commenter who really doesn't know squat and, the only one who should be treated as a troll is those, like bluesmanSF, who can't just simply give an answer, they have to insert an opinion in the answer. All he/she HAD to say when he/she first responded to me was what he/she said in the first and third sentence, which was, "Because the boards had a lot of abusive posters." "They know if you're required to give real info, you're less likely to be abusive." But, no, he/she had to go on inserting his/her own opinion like: "They don't want your information to sell, etc." Then, he/she had to go even further still and in a melodramatic fashion, act like I used some BIG OL' vulgar swear word which will bring about the end of the world because I used the word "hell". And, then, he/she had to tell me what's fine with me, even though he/she has no idea what's fine with me, by saying: "Of course that's fine with you since you seem to enjoy cursing and you think the boards are "stupid" any way, right?" So...really, who's the "troll" here? Why couldn't have what he/she said in the first and third sentence in his/her reply to me have sufficed? Oh...that's right, he/she had to be a "troll"...right? He/she could have avoided all of this if he/she just simply would have said: *Because the boards had a lot of abusive posters. They know if you're required to give real info, you're less likely to be abusive.* It didn't stop him/her from being abusive, now did it? Oh...wait, one doesn't have to give a cell phone number or credit card number in order to comment here. Maybe they should? And, lastly, you claim you authenticated long ago and you've have no problems ever? Sure about that? Entirely positive that magazine you received yesterday wasn't a result of IMDb selling your information to someone? Bet you aren't. You must not pay attention to the news that much.

I pay attention. I authenticated long ago and I know exactly where every magazine subscription I've ever received came from. But here's the thing..if you don't want to play by IMDb rules..DON'T. We don't care and seriously don't think we will be missing out on substantive and interesting information by you not posting. Those of us who enjoy film and the background info attached thereto won't mind losing such an "informative and knowledgeable" person such as, well, you. So, don't authenticate, we don 't really care. We seriously doubt you have much to offer in the form of information, stories, facts, or other film-related tid-bits. All we will be missing is an argumentative and derisive person who isn't interested in adding to the dialogue.

Before I say anything else, why do you keep responding to me if you find me as being such a "troll"? Here's one thing you might want to know. I respond to those who respond to me and I'm usually very intent on getting the last word, if you haven't figured that out by now.

Now, to imply you don't want an argumentative person here is only to imply that you don't want anyone here who has a differing opinion than your own and demonstrates with clarity a bias. If someone disagrees with, for example, someone who says some particular movie is a bad movie then, of course, the individual of whom disagrees could be construed as argumentative. So, if it's just a bunch of yes men and only those who are in agreement with the prevailing attitude are allowed to add to the dialogue and anyone who dares to have a differing opinion is construed as being argumentative, then there's no "dialogue" to be had. It's just a bunch of bobble heads one might see on one's dashboard, with their heads all nodding in agreement.

Further, who's "we"? You got a turd in your pocket? You've been appointed the official spokesperson for everyone now...have you? I take it there was a vote? And, am I to presume you speak on behalf of IMDb? Do you work for them?

And, sure you'll mind losing such an "informative and knowledgeable person" as me. I likely know more about movies than you'll ever dream of knowing. But, you'll never know that because you'll be missing out on such an informative and knowledgeable person such as myself. Your loss.

Insofar as your comment, "if you don't want to play by IMDb rules...DON'T". Really...teach? You gonna' smack someone across their knuckles with a ruler next? What, is this the third grade and you're the mean ol' teacher that's gonna' spank us all and keep us in line? Rules can be changed and that's why I wrote the comment, implying that they (IMDb) needs to change their stupid rules because asking for one's credit card information and/or cell phone number is absurd and is plain and simply none of their damn business. And, since there have been several postings regarding this issue as I have observed? Clearly, I'm not the only one who takes issue with it and not only has IMDb lost such an informative and knowledgeable person such as myself, they've likely also lost multitudes of other informative and knowledgeable people of whom also find this practice quite questionable and infringing on one's private information.

Lastly, sure you know where every "subscription" you've received came from. The ones you haven't subscribed to, on the other hand? Those are the ones you're getting because your credit card information or other private information was sold to someone. Frankly, considering the attitude you're taking right now, I'm suspecting you're one of the very ones involved in using such information for shady purposes. So, maybe, you actually are involved with IMDb and you're trying to hide something. How can anyone who isn't involved with IMDb be so sure as to give absolute definitive answers claiming IMDb doesn't use such information for the purposes I said they might be involved in? They can't. I think other folks who join this site might want to be very wary of you and IMDb. Someone who can so definitively make such bold claims as they don't use such information for such purposes who doesn't acknowledge being involved with IMDb strikes me as quite the suspicious character. How the hell could you possibly know what IMDb uses such information for? The more you talk and the more definitively you put up such a staunch defense of IMDb, the more odd this whole interaction becomes.

And oh, P.S. I'm frankly getting quite sick of folks claiming I'M the argumentative derisive person when people such as bluesmanSF started it all in the first place Like I said, if he would have simply stated what he stated in his first and third sentence, this whole thing could have been avoided. But, the punk had to open his/her virtual trap and insert his/her own damn opinion about the matter and be derisive him/herself and, you expect me to remain silent about it? So, you can frankly shove off. You don't even work for IMDb so, who the hell are you? You act like a damn mall cop who's been given some imaginary authority which you just plain and simply don't have.

You don't even work for IMDb so, who the hell are you?

IMDb has requested that knowledgeable users reply when the answer is well known so that staff can devote the limited time they have available to those questions that only they can answer.

An IMDb member may reply here, quite possibly to say that the answer has been given.  However, it is more likely that they will just flag the thread as Answered; something only Staff can do.