Quoting Skip from a thread in the Contributions Rule Committee:

Quote:
Gee if you guys get Ken change his mind, I think i will show as little class as I see displayed here and WHINE, WHINE< WHINE. there is not enough cheese in all of Wisconsin for this bunch. but I will say this has been personally very educational relative to the attitudes of users around here. SHOW A LITTLE CLASS, will ya...please.

Quote:
I am stunned that Ken will make a decision and users will have the temerity to argue with him about it. I am so shocked about this that I don't enen posses the words to express my total disgust.

No comment necessary, I guess...

So the rules don't apply to you, then?
Who was it that used to say, if you don't like it - keep it local?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I can accept some things, but if there is no room to provide accurate data that is verifiably correct, then you have successfully turned this database into IMDbII. This something james has tried to do for some time with his Rule-breaking votes, his utterly BIZZARRE interpretation of the Rules and his refusal to document data.

Quote:
I appears to me that we have a  cadre of users who want the data to appear as they want it and that has nothing to do reality. I can accept Ken setting up The Thing as the operative title, but to then deny the FACT that the Copyrighted Title as registered is John Carpenter's The Thing which is easily verifiable, is simply hallucinatory and tell me yhat these users have NO INTEREST in accurate data that can be FACTUALLY verified. It is cause for both confusion and consternation, as I said compromise is the key. Am i happy that the operative title is The Thing, No becaise that is not factually correct, but Ok in the interest of compromise, I thought Ken had gone with a compromise, but maybe not. But James, unicus and Rick have very clearly said they are NOT interested in either compromise or ACCURATE data, they want the data to be whatever is CONVENIENT for them, to hell with accuracy and what can be FACTUALLY verified. As I have said vefore Rule of the Whim not Rule of the Data.

One of your favorite reasons for calling me a rule-breaker is because I voted yes to a documented 1 cent increase in an SRP. You said that even though the change was accurate, it violated the SRP rule. So based on your logic above, my vote is now in good standing since it was based on accuracy beyond the rule.

Let's start correcting mistakes in overviews now too. Or do you wish to continue to compromise accurate data which can be factually verified?

Let's start correcting mistakes in film credits now too. Or do you wish to continue to compromise accurate data which can be factually verified?

Correcting mistakes in Overview would make surfeur happy, but it would NOT be factually veriifable, because the factual data is printed in the Overview warts and all. But I am sure you would like to do that.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
James don't try to make excuses I know what you do and don't and it isn't MUCH.

I've submitted 12 full cast and crew additions (not adjustments to existing cast and crew, but full additions), added 5 upcoming release profiles, and adjusted 3 existing profiles...all in the past 3 days. What a slacker I am. 

Not that it matters.

Not that it makes my opinion here any better or worse than anyone else's.

Not that anyone else but you cares.

But only to prove that you're lying. Again.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
AND THE RULES SAY DO NOT. But then I already know you are lingistically challenged. That is clkear from the way you spin.

Skip

The rules say it's "The Thing", yet you voted against that. If you can vote against an actual example provided in the rules, you have no standing to say anything against me.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Correcting mistakes in Overview would make surfeur happy, but it would NOT be factually veriifable, because the factual data is printed in the Overview warts and all. But I am sure you would like to do that.

Skip

The rules say to evaluate the cover and the film credits for the status of a possessive. You on the other hand are opening up worldwide copyright records as your definitive source. If you can do that, surely I can use a dictionary to document a spelling mistake.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Yoi don't like possessives James,

That's not true. If they aren't part of the title, they don't belong in the title field. That's all.

Quote:
and you don't want to use them under any circumstances.

That's not true. If they're part of the title, they should be used.

Quote:
FACTUALLY the cover says John Carpenter's The Thing on the cover but you want to ignore THAT FACT.

Factually, the rules say The Thing!

Unless you forgot to move the HD DVD version of The Thing from your wish list to your owned list when you added the copyright office's record as the original title, I can confirm for you what the cover says. The front cover says HD DVD at the top. Then it says John Carpenter's and underneath it says The Thing. Underneath that, it says The Look and Sound of Perfect. HD DVD is at the top of every HD DVD I have, so I know that's not part of the title. The Look and Sound of Perfect is on every Universal HD DVD I own, so I know that's not part of the title. Consulting the rules, I'm directed to look at the credit block or the film's credits and to exclude any possessive that's outside the quotes. That eliminates "John Carpenter's". Oh, and I almost forgot...but The Thing is specifically spelled out in the rules, so that's an easy one.

Quote:
So don't try your stupid argument with me.

Silly of me to read the rules.

Quote:
You don't like them, you don't want them and it is not based on anything that is FACTUAL.

Lie, lie and... and... lie.

(The more I type, the more you keep editing your posts.  )

Quote:
This has set the stage to allow for all kinds of changes, James, like Overviews because they just like what you have done are not based on FACTUAL data, the FACTUAL data is on the Cover, but you have trashed that.

Wait, wait.  So I'm saying to follow the rule which directs us to look at the credit block or the film credits and I'm saying you shouldn't be using title data from a copyright office. You are saying that an externally proven truth should override the credit block and the film credits. And somehow my reading of the title rule as restrictive in the use of the credit block and the film credits only is somehow causing people to seek outside sources like you are doing. Somehow I personally trashed using factual cover data by suggesting we look only at the cover and the film credits. You are choosing to look at copyright office records for your infallible data and somehow that's ok and that will keep everyone else using cover data only. Something like that.

Quote:
And you BELIEVE that the poster data yields the answer and it does NOT and The Thing proves it.

The rules direct us to look there. It's not about my belief.

Quote:
I could shock you with a few other possessives I am aware that would have you howling but they ARE LEGALLY copyrighted.

I believe Ken's intent was to provide us with a rule that would not require us to look anywhere other than the cover and the disc. I'm sure there are plenty of discrepancies between covers and title screens and US copyright offices and UK copyright offices and any other copyright offices.

You keep trumpeting that the copyrighted title is John Carpenter's The Thing. For the benefit of those who don't care to look up several hundred pages of records with the phrase "the thing" in them, here's what it says at the US Copyright Office:



Do note that The Thing is in bold and italics on their site.

Quote:
Its too bad that you do not understand all the implications and have not been interested in trying to understand them.

I think you are really arguing with Ken vicariously through me and everyone else. On the subject of The Thing, which is specifically spelled out in the rules as The Thing, it's pretty silly to have an argument over the implications of reading The Thing and understanding it to read The Thing. It's not my job to freak out about possible implications of the fact that it says The Thing. Nor is it yours.

Skip

I think that James' post on "non sequitur" is pretty close to what I've been seeing from you lately. You've become terrible at picking one or two sources of evidence and saying that they prove your viewpoint. Facts are facts, but facts are not conclusions.

What relevance does the US copyright office have? It is certainly a valid source of evidence for the title, but does it meet the requirements of the rules as a definitive answer? Simply put, NO!

If you've going to make 'factual' statements, please make an effort to link them to some form of conclusion, indicating how they are relevant to the case at hand and why other sources of evidence lead to the wrong conclusion. This constant use of invalidated facts and belittling of other opinions to make your case is untenable.

Stuart

Skippy is funny.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Local it shall be. NO PROBLEM and i will be willing to share my data with anybody who asks, but my Contributions will probably become very limited and I will tell you this RICK and HAL and Lopek certainly aren't going to do anything

Skip

You keep threatening to stop contributing, and how much time you spend doing it, and how your time spent so far is worth $150k, how much more you do than everyone else etc etc etc

Well stop then. Big deal.

If you don't enjoy doing it, cease, it is only a hobby.

I'm sure no-one will pressure you to start contributing again. And the database is certainly bigger than one user, it will survive.

RR