Full of inconsistencies ins't he?

;)

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Sorry guys that is NOT the Copyrighted title for the film LIKE IT OR NOT. You have an agenda, that is clear and therefore completely and totally irrelevant. There has NEVER been any movie made with the title The Thing. But, enjoy your agenda anmd your ganmes, stopr being stuck on stupid.

Sorry, james your interpretation of the Rules as usual just doesn't wash.

Skip

Where in the rules does it say to consult the copyright office for the original title?

The rule is:
"Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits"

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Sorry, james your interpretation of the Rules as usual just doesn't wash.

...and how did I misinterpret this:

Possessive examples: "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride", John Carpenter's "The Thing". In each case, the portion within quotes is the title.
My "interpretation" is that the portion within the quotes is "The Thing". Am I getting that wrong? Am I stuck on stupid? Is my agenda in the way? 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
John Carpenter's "The Thing".

Ooohhhh...there is no joy in Skipville!

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Bob:

I have said nothing about an anti_skippy agenda. I have all the information that I need to know that there are several users that have NO INTEREST in accurate data or even supporting Rules as repeatedly demonstrated in at least users votes. They are interested in supporting a TOTAL fiction. There is plenty of FICTIONAL data at IMDb, james, you would probably be much happier using their system, after all they don't even require you to document anything.

Skip

Non sequitur (logic)

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

Here are two types of non sequitur of traditional noteworthiness:

1) Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:

  1. If A is true, then B is true.
  2. B is stated to be true.
  3. Therefore, A must be true.

Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

An example of affirming the consequent would be:

  1. If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
  2. I am a mammal. (B)
  3. Therefore, I am a human. (A)

"I" could be another type of mammal without being a human. While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true. It is a non sequitur (note that it is the exact same argument form as in example 1 - the form is always a non sequitur).

2) Another common non sequitur is this:

  1. If A then B. (e.g., If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.)
  2. Not A. (e.g., I am not in Tokyo.)
  3. Therefore, not B. (e.g., Therefore, I am not in Japan.)

The speaker could be anywhere else in Japan. This sort of non sequitur is called denying the antecedent.

(If either of the above examples had "If and only if A, then B" as their first premise, then they would be valid and non-fallacious but unsound.)

Many other types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies. In everyday speech and reasoning, an example might be: "If my hair looks nice, all people will love me." However, there is no real connection between your hair and the love of all people. Advertising typically applies this kind of 'deduction'.

James... you must be bored this evening. 

You know there is no way to win anything when one side keeps changing the rules just to keep the argument going.

1st it was "use the cover and include every possessive all the time". Ken's new rule. Against what the majority wanted so it was the perfect chance for Skip to argue with a bunch of people.

When Ken re-evaluated his position to go with what the majority wanted Skip didn't let it drop, he jumped on what turned out to be an incorrect choice of wording on Ken's part. This allowed him to continue the argument and point out what a "huge mess the majority has created" [paraphrasing].

The "huge mess" was cleaned up by Ken within a couple of hours. Did that stop the argument... nope.

Now it continues with some type of "accurate title not a fictional one" argument. I'm telling you it will not stop there.

The fact that he has chosen one of the two examples Ken gives in the rules shows he has absolutely no interest in following what Ken has decided to use. IMO he is simply doing this to continue the argument. I say this because I do believe he has respect for Ken. Completely ignoring Ken's example tells me he either no longer respects Ken or he is simply doing it to keep the argument going. You decide.


If you do happen to change his mind (HA!) he will simply change the rules again and continue arguing. He seems to need it for some reason.



My advice to you, engage your forum block or, if you wish to continue reading his posts, at the very least put your foil hat back on! For goodness sake... you're completely unprotected here!

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
My advice to you, engage your forum block or, if you wish to continue reading his posts, at the very least put your foil hat back on! For goodness sake... you're completely unprotected here!

Forgive me. I am ashamed of my weakness. 

Tinfoil hat engaged: