Carnaby Feature Films PLC - ?

Reaper

For prospective investors who have just found this thread don't be put off by the huge irrelevant padding above from Heaven James (who claimed to be an investor but who got caught out), nor the pages of reviews from Adam Ickle previously. [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

rockitup

Thank heaven for the ignore function on this forum...

heaven_james

The troll read it
Internet troll - Definition
An internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages hoping to get angry responses, or a message sent by such a person. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" and ultimately from trolling for fish; it first appeared on Usenet. The term is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied to those who are ignorant of etiquette.
Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true Devil's Advocates generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling in order to fight groupthink.
Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to the fundamental attribution error, as it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal.
Contents [hide]

Calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that are impossible to determine, whereas using the verb (calling a post "trolling") describes the reception of a post without making assumptions about motives. Such assumptions would generally be an example of the fundamental attribution error; i.e. inferring that behavior results from a person's nature or personality rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior. In other words, trolling may have more to do with context than with personality. Also, it may be possible to troll unintentionally. Regardless, both users and posts are commonly labelled as trolls when their content upsets people.
The term troll is highly subjective, and some posts will look like trolling to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to others. For example, a so-called troll may be playing Devil's advocate by stating conservative opinions in a liberal forum. Behavior which might be considered a simple rampage or an emotional outburst in other environments is often tagged with the term troll in Internet discussion.
The term is frequently used to discredit an opposing position in an argument. This can amount to an ad hominem argument; a purported troll of this nature may actually hold an insightful but controversial position that is generating controversy precisely because it has successfully challenged entrenched opinions.
Possible reasons people use more slang monikers in internet-mediated discussion include the feeling of anonymity and impersonal perceptions of other conversants.
Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are virtually guaranteed, in most online forums, to earn a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical community where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily harm by their actions, and epistemic community based on and a mere exchange of words and ideas. Customs of discourse, or etiquette, that originated in such physical communities are often applied naively by newcomers to the internet who are not used to the range of views expressed online, especially anonymously.
Troll food refers to replies to the original controversial troll posts, that the trolls subsequently use as feedback to throw more fuel to the fire of their posts.
"Please do not feed the Trolls" is a warning sign that other article readers post to warn newbies that the original poster is a troll.
Trolling in different internet media

Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups, and as the internet has evolved, so has trolling.
Usenet — hierarchies of newsgroups limit trolls' exposure, but crossposting can overcome this. Some Internet Service Providers implement limits on the number of newsgroups a message can be crossposted to. In one notable example, alt.net instituted a crosspost limit after the trolls on the system had become so notorious that Peter da Silva instituted a campaign for other systems to cease exchanging news with alt.net until they did something about the problem.
Mailing lists — usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted contributors can quickly be banned.
SlashCode-based forums use a rating system so that readers can moderate a post up or down from its initial rating. Readers can then choose to ignore posts that others have "modded down." Timing of trolls is particularly important, since anything more than the first 20 or so posts is unlikely to be read. An ideal troll would generate much heated discussion and posting without further intervention from the troll.
Wikis — the flat, asynchronous and open model allows anyone to post anything; users work to undo negative changes using the built-in reversion tools, but this requires hundreds of volunteers to monitor large popular sites. Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a controversial opinion, or trolling.
Weblogs — in their most common form as a personal soapbox with the ability for anybody to leave comments, popular weblogs often make effective springboards for trolls, either as inflammatory comments or provocative entries. The ease with which weblogs can be linked encourages troll propagation.
IRC — the open nature of most IRC channels on popular networks enables any potential troll to enter and utilise any of a range of techniques, ranging from simple crapflooding to subtly irritating remarks to garner angry responses. The relative ease of evading bans from channels and servers and the volatile nature of many IRC users can allow trolls to perpetuate indefinitely.
Multiplayer first person shooters — online gaming attracts a large number of teenage men, who take advantage of the combative atmosphere and their general anonymity to disparage other players. See pwn for more information. After becoming the target of verbal abuse in the game Unreal Tournament 2004, the authors of Penny Arcade proposed the "Greater Internet !!!!wad Theory".
Online Fantasy Sports — A troll will infiltrate a free, online league with multiple teams from different identity accounts and then attempt to make lopsided trades of players to improve one team. The troll will leave numerous messages on the league bulletin board from different identities to give the appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illicit behavior. Players that object to the obvious complicity are usually showered with insults and other attempts at evasion.
Forums — Forums of all kinds will attract trolls. Their behavior does not differ much from the above examples. With forums there is no forum free of trolls, this could be seen as the unique factor in forum trolling, a forum about knitting has the same chance at getting trolled as a forum dedicated to a new sports car.
Examples

Common types of troll messages or activities:
off topic messages — "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
inflammatory messages — "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
messages containing an obvious flaw or error — "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
intentionally naïve or politically contentious messages — "I think George W. Bush is the best/worst President ever."
intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error; often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
a subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); these are not always troll-posts and are usually at least mathematically interesting.
including offensive media such as annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a message, or linking to shock sites that contain such media. Often these links are disguised as legitimate links.
after a flamewar ensues, pretending to be innocent
posting plot spoilers to popular movies and books without warning, sometimes surreptitiously buried in an otherwise innocuous message
posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places
off-topic complaints about personal life; sometimes this is the "cry for help" troll.
Other examples
Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup — though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like those who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged Internet trolls sometimes resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objectives.
A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus of the group or forum- for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum, or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.
Cross posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance, an anti-fast food flame bait might be cross posted to healthy eating groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic artificial intelligence newsgroup.
An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American students" USENET thread which got 3000+ followups.
Motivation

Most discussion of what motivates Internet trolls comes from other Internet users who claim to have observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls might be unreliable, since they may in fact be intending to stir controversy rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon. Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular Internet project and references to an Internet user as a troll might not be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result, identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative. Still, several basic goals have been attributed to Internet trolls, according to the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking.
Proposed motivations for trolling:
Self-proclaimed trolls and their defenders suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of viewing power relations on large public wikis.
Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and school--although it is impossible to know whether this is just simply part of the troll. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive, confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of tough love guidance in an anonymous forum.
Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (This often involves sock puppeteering, where the bad cop is a sock-puppet troll.) or, alternatively, play the role of Devil's advocate to strengthen opposing convictions [with which he or she usually actually agrees].
Test the integrity of a system against social attacks or other forms of misbehavior: For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to see whether any action is taken by the site administrators.
Amusement: To some people, the thought of a 70-year-old Internet user being sent to a sexually explicit or gross image is funny.
Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the idea that you can spend one minute of your time posting a troll, causing 10 other people to waste ten minutes of their time, more or catalytically affecting lots of other people. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they wasted others time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.
Domino effect: Related to amusement, but a more specific fashion: starting large chain reactions in response to one's initial post. Achieving a disproportionately large response to a small action is the general theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes missing (but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number of people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed disappearance.
Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as, when a sort of conformism settles, shocking people out of it.
Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves as trolls, but misunderstood humorists or political commentators.
Personal attacks against one particular user or group of users
Overcome feelings of inferiority or powerlessness by getting the experience of controlling an environment.
Self-promotion
Lowering signal to noise ratio: On Slashdot, points that could be used to moderate interesting things up get wasted on moderating down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. This lowers the quality of comments at certain thresholds.
Since there is a wide spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being benevolent and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as trolls in the negative sense is often rash.
Some users of Internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters", or "trollbaiters". They willingly enter conflict when trolls emerge. Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce" following a troll, they will drive the thread offtopic.
Regarding troll-related conflicts, there are five groups into which users might be classified:
Trolls are users who actively provoke conflict.
Trollhunters (or Trollbaiters) behave according to a principle of "second strike". They do not initiate conflict, but escalate it once it begins. Often they use other trolls as an excuse for their own misbehavior, and in many cases, typecast a user as a "troll" regardless of his or her intent.
Ignorers seek to ignore the conflict, continuing with the topic at-hand. They usually express a nonchalant disdain for the troll, but do not seek actively to insult him or her. They behave like elders, issuing simple words of wisdom such as "Do not feed the trolls." or other phrases that generally mean the same thing: "Ignore the troublemaker and he will give up and go away." Although this type of response could be taken as passive-agressive Trollbaiter behavior.
Moderators (not in the same sense as a "system moderator") seek to resolve the conflict, making all parties happy, if possible.
Bystanders withdraw from the conflict. In particularly bad cases, they will leave the forum in disgust.
In the attention-seeking cases, trolls seek the conflict provided by trollbaiters, whereas in the "cry for help" cases, they seek the consolance and compassion offered by moderators.
The Media UK forums had to close down because of trolls and libellous postings, and the Digital Spy forums have a no-troll policy so as to stop trolls registering. Both use VBulletin software.
Resolutions and alternatives

In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict not emerge at all.
Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in Internet discussions as trolls can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and "IRL", may assume an antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may therefore perpetuate trolling.
Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters and frustrated by ignorers, and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response.
Usefulness of trolling

A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must be definitively, "yes and no".
Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical right-winger described as a troll may allow a conservative lurker to feel more comfortable expressing her viewpoints, which seem very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying opinion against them.
Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the validity of what is read both on the internet and from other sources. Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an informed and considered opinion and may get as much visibility. It is arguable that shock jocks, some newspaper columnists are trolling public opinion.
Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as trolls, the general consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the troll and trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose.
The Chinese characters for internet troll are made up of the characters for Internet (互联网) combined with the characters for provocation (拖) and learning (钓).
Trolls can also in some circumstances be a source of genuine humour, which depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It's usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments whereas a good troll will create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in with cunning twists to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.
Some trolls have been known to try and troll threads into deletion and serve as a form of negative reinforcement to "newbies" and also help reduce clutter of spam threads on a large message board.




Before we begin, though, understand this: the best way to deal with a Troll is to ignore them entirely. They are not worth your time, however you may feel about their comments.

However, this site recognises that sometimes you may be unwittingly drawn into a 'conversation' with them. This site will help you to deal with that situation.

"How To Handle A Troll" is updated on a semi-regular basis. You might like to visit this page again to learn new tactics against the Trolls. Similarly, you might like to let your friends know about the site. After you have finished reading, please link to this guide from your website.

Don't let anyone get destroyed by the Trolls!

What is a Troll?
The best way to know what a Troll is, is to see what they do. The following link is a humourous look at how to Troll, even encouraging people to take up the habit. Note how the author himself distinguishes between the Trolls who are just trying to gain attention, or are trying to create havoc.
Yet the author has made a fatal flaw: He fails to see that ALL Trolls crave attention. That is the sole reason they exist - whether or not they want to feel that they have achieved something (even if it is destruction) or to be recognised for doing something deviant, they want just a little attention in their direction.

Remember: Without attention, Trolls are nothing. They have no audience, and no victim. To read the website, click here. NOTE: The previous website has been removed. I will try to find a replacement site that demonstrates Troll mentality, but until then, you'll have to make do with my explanations, sorry!

I would encourage you to read the whole page. We'll come back to it later, but it is well worth it anyway.

The mentality of a Troll is obvious - he wants a cheap laugh, and that is all. The offense that may be caused is of no concern to him, as are any other ramifications of his actions.

This Usenet post describes what many people consider to be trolls. There are hundreds of such definitions across the 'net, on various different websites (including this one, and many that are linked on this site). Ultimately, these many definitions of trolls, all vary slightly, but they all sum up to this:-

Trolls are a nuisance. They purposefully cause annoyance to other users, but their approach can, and does, vary. Some trolls are obvious, some are not. This website attempts to show you some of the different approaches that trolls take - to keep you, as an Internet user, prepared.

Are there different sorts of Trolls?
Yes. There are several types of Trolls, and each is discussed on in more depth later in this site. They are: The Bored's, The Liars, The Confrontationalists and The Controversials
Many Trolls just want to be a nuisance. They're kids who aren't mature enough to have a sensible conversation. These Trolls fall under The Bored's category, but that does not necessarily mean that all Trolls are children. Many "mature" adults find enjoyment in Trolling groups.

Colley_Cibber

Reaper and Rockitup,

I had no idea that someone could so publicly humiliate themselves. Not only has HeavenJ drifted ever further into the realm of irrelevance but he has developed a writing style so dissimilar from earlier postings that it must be a different person.

We know that no public Carnaby investor has received a return from the many projects (labelled as movies). We know that no returns can reasonably be expected. Some of us have slowly learned the 'tricks' of movie financing.

But wait!

I suddenly realised that HJ is truly 'heaven sent.' Isn't what he has posted the next Carnaby script? Whaddya think of it? A moneyspinner? Can you remember the troll in Harry Potter? (Hope HJ isn't angling for a body double role.) HJ mentions a "Fred" in his posting (leaked plot?). Could this be a cameo role for "Fred Wasson" - the 'untraceable' non-resident director who signs the accounts of all the Carnaby film failures?



cc: My lawyer?

Colley_Cibber

pjala's first posting on this forum, back in mid-2006, should be read again.

The company, Carnaby Feature Films plc, is now being wound up.

Read the postings here. Please don't report HeavenJames or Adam Ickles. It is most fitting that they stand.

"Carnaby Feature Films plc" was the vehicle invented by Carnaby to produce the film, "The Bridge of Lies." Renamed, "Caught in the Act," it was an unmitigated commercial disaster. Shareholders' funds of over TWO MILLION pounds have disappeared.

Please, if you are considering an investment in any Carnaby venture, do proper research. A good free website (at the moment) is "companycheck." Enter 'Carnaby Feature Film plc' or, if you can take it, 'Carnaby.'
[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]


Correct me if I'm wrong but the first Carnaby venture was called, Carnaby Films plc. It is now dissolved after swallowing a seven figure sum of investor funds. The movie it produced? SPIVS.


CC

rockitup

Colley_Cibber wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but the first Carnaby venture was called, Carnaby Films plc. It is now dissolved after swallowing a seven figure sum of investor funds. The movie it produced? SPIVS.


CC

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

SPIVS......very fitting name for Carnaby Films!

lucksmine

i have just found all this and am glad all took time to share experiences, i registered after reading elswhere a "slant" stating that we are all intelligent and it's like going to a racecourse and placing a bet on an unlikely horse at 100/1 and if it looses we just rip up our betting slip and smile having just had a good day at the races, but if it wins then we jump up and down..so on and so forth.
This is a slant- i call it a parable in the mouth of a fool- looked at from the wrong end of the binochulars, its not about the horse it's about THE BOOKIES, they are not there to pay out, the evidence shows that your winning slip cannot be redeemed.
Sure we have a wad of cash, sure we can leave with none but the racecourse is an enclosure where the people who take your money AS A MEANS TO POSSIBLY MAKE MORE are under the control of the course and BEHAVE and PAYOUT so THEY can do the same next time there are races, to make money again or regain losses.
Can anyone tell me a racecourse where the bookmakers can change their name for each new race meeting?
I had a call the other day and was suspicious when his given name doesnt appear anywhere,anyone who is honest and in the eye of the public has no reason not to be visible ..unless..its a cover. over the last 12 months 2 females called me, now they arent available. When i told one that i was coming to London and would pop in to their office for a chat and was told that they were having building works done/moving to a new office... i became wary.
Again thank for putting us in the picture.

lucksmine

the jockey may be experienced,the horse good for a place, both having had previous wins and the racecouse(Pinewood) renown but these days there's a scrum for cash and those on the ladder want to keep moving up. Their Agents will no doubt have clauses for them to walk away if the cash doesn't appear -their cut taken first-I'm no lawyer but anyone can write the script.
Ambition play a HUGE part in this and some will do virtually anything to get the fame they seek, those that want to become rich are a different class altogether.
As I wrote on 3/4 it's the BOOKIES here that change their name so that your "winning "betting" slip" has no validity. Their "terms and conditions" apply.
I hope you get my "parable" as opposed to a "slant" as another wrote justifying a silly investment that only rewards one with momentary glee/self satisfaction.
A fool and his money is easily parted.

tonich wrote: »

Can we please get a reality check here? I have invested 5k in 2 movies + the company itself and I am not worried.
- If you go to Amazon and search their DVD titles you will find lots of positive feedback about their films.
- Rise of the foot soldier has been a big cult success.
- I think Doghouse will do even better.
- Can someone please leave feedback here on successful returns from investments?
Cheers
:j

sanbro

I had a prospectus from Carnaby International Pictures, showing me what a good bet the film Still Waters was. After a couple of days I had a phone call asking me to make an appointment with them to which I said I hadn't read the prospectus so they said they would ring on Tuesday 24th April 2012 which they did, I had all the splurge of what a success they thought the film would be and that I would have the chance to go on set and meet the director etc etc. In the meantime before he rang I did some research into the company and found out that they only had £9482 in their cash account, and liabilities of -£40,561 and only £17358 in assets. So on paper not a good bet. When the guy rang after we had gone through all the splurge, he asked if I had any queries, so I voiced my concerns about the state of their accounts for 2011, he passed me over to his colleague, when I told him about the above, he got a bit shirty and said I guess this is not for you, I replied no and he put the phone down, seemed quite agitated that I had found out this. So my advice is no to touch this investment, fingers will be burnt. I hope this has been of some help. Don't be seduced by the glamour.

Max3456

I also have a prospectus for this film. Can anyone confirm if any of the various Carnaby companies has handed back anything at all?

I don't mean getting the EIS tax relief, but just getting something back from the films being exploited. Or is it zero back?

Thanks