Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Blah blah blah ...{snipped to protect the blockers}

Well, I tried.

I don't know why you bothered.  I am really starting to wonder about some people around here.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Starting? I have been for a long time.

Skip 

Well, unlike you, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I will be sure to stop doing that in the future...for a select few anyway. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Starting? I have been for a long time.

Skip 

Well, unlike you, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I will be sure to stop doing that in the future...for a select few anyway. 

You did that a long time ago, as well, my friend.  I too prefer that approach but as I said it has been proven beyond all doubt now and that makes me truly sad.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That is YOUR interpretation and has nothing to do with reality. The term verifiable is used that opens the door well ebyiond your narrow interpretation, which is a truly self-serving interpretation designed to eliminate all such data whether you wish is based on anything FACTUAL, which is not. Your entire premise is built around a self-perpetuating fiction which will do nothing more than ultimately destroy the validity of the database, which you and others have been working to do for a very loooong time now. I once gave you the benefit of the doubt but no longer, you have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What really makes me very sad, James, is that it is also very clear that you do not see it.

Skip

"DVD Profiler must walk a fine line between enough accuracy to keep one side of the aisle happy while maintaining ease of use and entry to keep the other, generally somewhat silent and large majority happy.  My development experience is not trivial, and I've been forced to design systems where one person's concept of accuracy has driven the project into the ground, completely unusable to the end users.  I don't plan to make that mistake here." (Ken Cole)

Yes it does...in my opinion you're quest for accuracy is not good for this program. You are taking it too far. We are tracking dvd releases not films....therefore taking the title from the cover is completely right and possesives and quotes are not adding anything except in rare cases where it actually makes sense to have them. For the most part they are not needed and your fight for them is really rather a waste of time and energy...but go ahead have a good time!

Bodi:

It was not I. I deal with the data that I see PERIOD. I don't pretend to know more than the people who made the film. There are too may ways That I have to control my data locally and i exercise them to their fullest extent. Possessive's ACTUALLY appear ON SCREEN or ON COVER that is an undeniable FACT, to pretend otherwise is simply delusional. It was others wjho then started throwing in the US Copyright Office as a resource,OK I'll buy that, that too is FACTUAL data. Now they have dedcided that even that is not enough for them, they simply want to remove anything that they do not consider title based NOT on anything FACTUAL. Ken added some descriptive sentences, not as Rule but as guidance. But some want to believe otherwise. This database is extraordinarily easy to deal with, or WAS until people started bending it, how do I know that easy by sheer volume, I have edited over 3000 titles in the last TWO years, most of them FULL AUDITS with Cover Scans and while you and every one else feign confusion, I have NEVER had such. Now this tyrannical majority has got things so twisted, they are causing more problems and arguments than ever but as usual they don't see that and they try and hide behind your words of usability, which is pure unmitigated BUNK, sorry guy I call it like I see it. This is not about usability or anything else, this is about some users who have done near nothing for this Community, save cause trouble, but in the course of doing nothing they have ALL the answers. I am not saying that all possessives are legitimate, but when a possessive gets removed that IS part of the title then they betray what their real agenda is.

Skip

Skip you're gonna have to face facts that most people on here including the head honcho don't see things your way with respect to quotes and possesives in titles. All this talk of facts and what you see on screen is irrelevant. We have new rules and they have to be followed so let's just move on.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Midnit:

BTW Those are NOT HIS results, he didn't do the research.

Skip

Well that's a complete lie and shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Simple steps for simple people to follow:
1. Go to US copyright office website
2. Click on "search records"
3. Click on "search the catalog"
4. type in "thing" and click "start search"
5. sort by date and browse to 1982

Or was that too complicated for you to follow?