Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

Richie whatever I decide to do is what I wqill do and it is none of your concern.
Skip

Well stop bloody harping on about stopping/not stopping contributing profiles etc in the forums all the time.

It has become tedious, like a spoilt child spitting his dummy out.

I do apply logic, Gunnar, i do not throw out  red herrings like you do.

Your comment demonstrates one of two things, Gunnar

You either lack the ability to decipher what is the title on the cover OR simply an attempt to muddy the water.

@ surfeur I did not insult you, iused for an example, if you have changed your opinion...great.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Actually its more about what I think of some users , Unicus inciluding YOU and that answer is NOT MUCH. 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.

I am sorry, but it is your behavior that is bizzare.  James' interpretation is the exact same one as Ken's and yet you still argue that it is wrong.  As for what you think of me and some users, you act as if that means anything.  If you read these forums, you will see that, for the most part, you are the one people think very little of.

Quote:
@ Gunnar this has nothing to do whine , this has to do with Accuracy versus TOTAL FICTION. Somewhere we have to have accurate data, if not then the database is WORTHLESS.

How many times have you said that the data must be accurate to the DVD and nothing else?  How many times have you said that outside sources, while interesting, are meaningless?  Now, because the shoe is on the other foot, you have changed your tune?  Why am I not surprised.

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.

Skip

Your actions belie your words.  If you could accept Ken setting up 'The Thing' as the operative title, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

As for the rest, nobody is claiming that 'John Carpenter's The Thing' isn't the title that is registerd at the US Copyright Office.  What we are saying is, per the rules, it doesn't matter.  The rules make no allowance for that as a source.  The rules list two, and only two, valid sources...the copyright notice, if available, and the film's credits.

I am sorry, but your argument is not supported by the rules.  It would have been valid a few days ago, before Ken changed the rules.  As it sits now, the DVD is the only source for this information...something you used to support.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
surfeur I did not insult you, I used for an example.

1/ I didn't say you insulted me today.

2/ I just meant that your example was inapproriate as it is not at all documented.

It doesn't matter. You're on the list now. Just like HAL, RICK (me) and Lopek (for some reason is not usually written in ALL CAPS).

Heck, Andy spent quite some time putting together the common name database; I submit one or two changes a week, not much, but something; Hal has done plenty, anyone with the Fox Film Noir collection knows that. None of this matters. We're all slackers who are only here to cause trouble.

Welcome to the club. Keep it up long enough and we'll give you the password to the back room where we get together and plan our strategies on how to "turn the program into IMDB" 

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
surfeur I did not insult you, I used for an example.

1/ I didn't say you insulted me today.

2/ I just meant that your example was inapproriate as it is not at all documented.

LOL, surfeur, you don't want me to diocument it, my friend. As I said if you have changed your opinion, or recognized what and why I think that is great.

Skip

Rick:

You are on the list because you are insulting (not just to me) but becuase you are extremely vocal, you make so few Contributions, beyond your March Exodus (which was a WRECK and made a hash out of the Db) that it is truly pathetic. That us why you, Hal and Lopek are on my list. I find it extremely insulting for you to be vocal while doing next to NOTHING, what it tells me is that you want OTHERS to do the work while you sit back and reap the benefits of their hard work. In short, I call it LAZY.

Skip

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
This whole argument is about possessives, right?

Then why is the title of "The Lord of the Rings" not "My Preciousss..."?

Why would you make a contribution for this? 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I do apply logic, Gunnar, i do not throw out  red herrings like you do.

Your comment demonstrates one of two things, Gunnar

You either lack the ability to decipher what is the title on the cover OR simply an attempt to muddy the water.

@ surfeur I did not insult you, iused for an example, if you have changed your opinion...great.

Skip

As usual you throw out stupid remarks instead of actually addressing the points raised.

I made no attempt to decipher the title. You referred to what's factually on the cover, as if that was all that there was. That's not true. There are other things on the cover than that which you mentioned. THAT is a fact. It's not hard for me to apply logic and the rules in order to find what the title is. It does seem to be for you since you argue that "John Carpenter's The Thing" is factually on the cover, as if that has any bearing on the discussion.

I guess there's no point in me asking you to exemplify what "red herrings" I have thrown out?