Nadja. your first post was civil and contained nothing of interest in regards to where this topic has gone. It was your response to me that went over the top as I described. I simply supplied my thoughts, on the topic, and you responded with two insulting remarks which were COMPLETELY unnecessary.

Indeed I did Gunnar and you decided to stick you nose in the middle of it and you got bit for it. Nadja made two comments which were unacceptable, i have just as much right to voice my opinion as anyone else, some of you seem not to like that, or do not like the fact that I am opinionated and have thought out most of these issues long ago. If you don't want to get bi, Gunnar then don't stick yourself in the middle of something which hertofore you had offered no input on.

Skip

::shakes head::

Careful, Unicus.

Skip

See, that's the thing Skip. You can claim you were "a bit rude and brusque", but to anyone else you were entirely needlessly out of order, no matter how you scale it. Put simply, you lowered the tone for absolutely no reason other than you feel some sort of malice towards me. You're out of touch with people. Probably all people. Talk to yourself, I'm drawing my line here.

I agree, Unicus. If the "bigger picture" is the same as "if the bonus disc is in an individual case then it should have an individual profile", then I'm glad I can't see it and can simply agree with everyone else.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Darius talks about minor slights, Nadja's comment would no even been worthy of a comment had he ended it with one sentence. "And my original reply wasn't directed at you, Skip." It was the remainder pof that comment taht was over the top and drew the fire.

I read nadja's post a few times to try and see the problem, and I couldn't see anything that justified your response. There were a couple of minor slights, but nothing any worse that you presented just three posts earlier.

* Nadja - minor slight that, at worst, matched your own (which came first and was directed at nadja)
* john - a near perfect neutral response to highlight unacceptable behaviour (to which you're response was wholly unacceptable)
* Gunnar - added support for John's comment to demonstrate wider dissatisfaction with your conduct; an action that was suggested to demonstrate that opinions such as John's were wider than personal feuds. Took an unnecessary dig at you, but nothing terrible and certainly less than I've seen you give on many occasions.
* Grendell - Blunt, debatable, but not especially rude (it's not like he called you names or made references to your rectum, as you did to John). Again, I've seen you give far worse on many occasions, although I'd rather have seen something a bit less inflammatory.
* Spike - a less eloquent way of presenting the same; well done for trying, disapproving frown for manner in which it was delivered.

The responses of these people range from model responses to a slightly rude way of making a point. However, none of them have been as bad as you've given in this thread. Although the conduct in this thread hasn't been terrible, I still support the belief that you crossed the line and should apologize.

As for the actual topic, I still believe that your argument is unreasoned and includes fallacies (e.g. 99% comment), and is presented as fact rather than opinion. If you would approach the topic from the position of having an opinion you need to get across rather than a fact that we're all too stupid to understand, I'd believe that you were involved in a discussion. At the moment, I don't believe that you're engaged in discussion.

On topic, the examples that I've seen would suggest to me that a separate disc would be most sensible.

Stuart

My second post contained a multitude of logical reasons. Maybe read it all instead of just the bit you wanted to twist?

In the spirit of the actual discussion of topic, Skip, instead of trying to start another losing war with me (which is clearly what you're trying to do based on you calling me out in the post I just read), tell me why you're so adamant that bonus discs should not be profiled when I see you've done exactly that for 24 S5. "24: Season Five: Special Features", with its own scan and everything. And in fact a violation by copying a features list into the overview box. I think you need a better reason than "it's in a separate case", as the whole TV child profile idea was based on the fact that "packaging doesn't matter, content does."

Maybe you can re-read my last post too, and actually respond to it.

I picked up on a specific part of your argument that I can agree with because there are some such titles. Some Bonus Discs would be attached to the child Profile, I believe you can see this demonstarted in MY handling, though uncontributed) of Young Indy and its Bonus Disc system, however this formati is exceedingly rare, the only similar title that comes to mind was Alien Quad, which I handled in similar fashion. There are a smattering of Bonus discs that come in their own "case", this could be a sleeve, but it is separately cased nonetheless, and typically will involve its own cover art.

By your logic, Nadja, we should begin breaking out every two disc set and creating separate child profiles for them, they would all become, in essence boxsets. Now, I have no problem with this long term (assuming Ken will ultimately allow us to specifically spell out the contents of the material as opposed to the rather generic system currently in use). But I don't think we should do it yet, except in the rare instances i have noted, because we cannot provide specific Bonus Content information.

Skip