| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 813 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Oooo - I see my post got bumped back to the top of the active topics window. Somebody who is blocked just replied.
I can only guess who and what the reply was. Something about "doing nothing but causing trouble" would be my guess. I can live without knowing for sure though. 
Ken - it's been a couple of days since I thanked you for the forum blocking feature. It has changed the way I see this place, for the better.  It isn't very honorable to block someone so you disagree with and then continue to insult him in the forum knowing you can do so without having to read his replies. This is the ultimate in cheap-shotting -- and the coward's way of dealing with something. @lopek If you think that this behavior by Rick puts him back to the top, you display the same dishonorable behavior as he does. Shame on both of you cowards.   | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you Americans consider those insults, then you guys really need to get insulted more often! You're way too sensitive.
And Lopek meant that Rick was back to the top of the "active topics" list, no more. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | North: Trust me my friend, I can do much better and i happen to know that KDh can to. Let's just say that the gentleman in both of us prevents us from saying what I am sure we are both thinking.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:
Quote:
Oooo - I see my post got bumped back to the top of the active topics window. Somebody who is blocked just replied.
I can only guess who and what the reply was. Something about "doing nothing but causing trouble" would be my guess. I can live without knowing for sure though.
Ken - it's been a couple of days since I thanked you for the forum blocking feature. It has changed the way I see this place, for the better.
It isn't very honorable to block someone so you disagree with and then continue to insult him in the forum knowing you can do so without having to read his replies. This is the ultimate in cheap-shotting -- and the coward's way of dealing with something.
@lopek
If you think that this behavior by Rick puts him back to the top, you display the same dishonorable behavior as he does.
Shame on both of you cowards. Call it what you wish. Without knowing the history you are simply making a speculation based on what you know of from forum discussions. The "fued" goes way beyond what you have seen on the surface. For the record there was nothing insulting in my post as you claim.... unless my "guess" as to what was said was right on. Even then I'm not sure how guessing correctly on what somebody said can be insulting to the person who said it. If anything was insulting it would have been the "troublemaker" reply (assuming my guess was correct)  There is nothing cowardly about anything I have done since I joined this forum. I have go toe to toe with many here. My choice to no longer get into arguments with a couple of people doesn't make me a coward. The feature is there and I happily use it. BTW - the "back on top" comment from Andy was addressing the fact that my post was back on top of the list, meaning another blocked reply was made but we couldn't see it. We just see my last post. It had nothing to do with some type of social standing as you seem to think. Get your facts right before you go attacking others. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Rick: I have news for you, if you get to read this. The feud is one-sided, I have no feud with you or anyone else.  It is not my desire to fight with you or anyone else here, I will only point out KDH's comment to you and your behavior speaks for itself as does the block and your particularly your behavior behind the block. Besides it's not fair for me to fight an unarmed man. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Call it what you wish. Without knowing the history you are simply making a speculation based on what you know of from forum discussions. The "fued" goes way beyond what you have seen on the surface. Don't know why it started - don't care. You are continuing to stoke the fire with your posts knowing full well you are protected from seeing the responses. That is cowardly. Quote:
For the record there was nothing insulting in my post as you claim.... unless my "guess" as to what was said was right on. Even then I'm not sure how guessing correctly on what somebody said can be insulting to the person who said it. If anything was insulting it would have been the "troublemaker" reply (assuming my guess was correct) What "troublemaker" reply? I don't see any "troublemaker" reply - and I don't have anyone blocked. Quote:
There is nothing cowardly about anything I have done since I joined this forum. I have go toe to toe with many here. My choice to no longer get into arguments with a couple of people doesn't make me a coward. The feature is there and I happily use it. Sorry, I humbly disagree. Taking pot shots from behind cover is cowardly. If these people are so troubling to you, keep your opinions about them behind cover, too. I don't want to see them anymore. In the end, since I am unwilling to block anyone I have to wade through everybody's crap posting - yours and theirs. Quote:
BTW - the "back on top" comment from Andy was addressing the fact that my post was back on top of the list, meaning another blocked reply was made but we couldn't see it. We just see my last post. It had nothing to do with some type of social standing as you seem to think. Get your facts right before you go attacking others. I stand corrected on this, and apologize to you, Andy. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Still don't see where pointing out somebody who was blocked posted something is taking a pot shot but obviously you think it is. As I said in the other thread, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The irony of this is you post this: Quote:
If these people are so troubling to you, keep your opinions about them behind cover, too. I don't want to see them anymore. In the end, since I am unwilling to block anyone I have to wade through everybody's crap posting - yours and theirs. You don't want to read my "crap" but for some reason seem to think others will want to read your "crap" (your word... not mine). If you don't like what I post ignore it... or block me. Your call. I'll not waste anyone else's time on this by replying anymore. They already have enough "crap" to wade through now, your and mine both. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
As usual, Rick you can't leave well enough alone. You just have to make comments about other users which are disparaging and demeaning. I certainly hope that one day....  I didn't find anything wrong with his comment. Actually, I found it supportive. |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sorry I am late to this party but a couple of observations. Many times I have seen repeated it is illegal data because there is no source in any contribution notes. When this and many other titles were released YOU COULD NOT GIVE A SOURCE OR CONTRIBUTION NOTES FOR AN INITIAL SUBMISSION. This was a recent change and a recent requirement for initial submissions to have sources. So there will be thousands of titles like this and it would be very dangerous to forget this. In many cases the data could have been in the initial submission.
There are rules that do apply and that is you may remove uncredited but it has to be undocumented AND from a 3rd party database. AND means that both have to exist before the data can be removed as I understand it. If the person wants to remove it in the contribution notes it should show that it is undicumented and the 3rd party database that was clearly used. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
YOU COULD NOT GIVE A SOURCE OR CONTRIBUTION NOTES FOR AN INITIAL SUBMISSION. OoOoOo GOOD ONE! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
As usual, Rick you can't leave well enough alone. You just have to make comments about other users which are disparaging and demeaning. I certainly hope that one day....
Skip Maybe I am missing something but I didn't see anything in Rick's post that was disparaging and demeaning. I mean, it's not like he said their actions were unbeliievable, illogical and totally irrational, In addition, he didn't question their common sense, call them children or tell them to climb down off of their ginormous horse. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
It isn't very honorable to block someone so you disagree with and then continue to insult him in the forum knowing you can do so without having to read his replies. This is the ultimate in cheap-shotting -- and the coward's way of dealing with something.
@lopek
If you think that this behavior by Rick puts him back to the top, you display the same dishonorable behavior as he does.
Shame on both of you cowards. Oh give me a break. Rick didn't take any cheap shots at anyone. His comments were general in nature and if Skip took them personally, well that is his fault, not Rick's. As for calling them cowards...all I can say is:  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
Sorry I am late to this party but a couple of observations. Many times I have seen repeated it is illegal data because there is no source in any contribution notes. When this and many other titles were released YOU COULD NOT GIVE A SOURCE OR CONTRIBUTION NOTES FOR AN INITIAL SUBMISSION. This was a recent change and a recent requirement for initial submissions to have sources. So there will be thousands of titles like this and it would be very dangerous to forget this. In many cases the data could have been in the initial submission.
There are rules that do apply and that is you may remove uncredited but it has to be undocumented AND from a 3rd party database. AND means that both have to exist before the data can be removed as I understand it. If the person wants to remove it in the contribution notes it should show that it is undicumented and the 3rd party database that was clearly used. While it is true that many titles were slipped through without notes when Invelos first went live, that still doesn't excuse contributing illegal data. There has always been a prohibition on doing that, so if we couldn't contribute notes, the screeners should have paid more attention and disallowed those profiles that weren't properly documented. Whether or not it is from a 3rd party database in such cases is irrelevant. No documentation is no documentation, so where the data came from or how good it might be is of no import. Its like the chain of evidence in a criminal case. If you can't document where the evidence came from or how it was handled and stored prior to court, it is inadmissible even if it is good evidence. Good or bad, data without documentation is inadmissible in DVDP. In addition, there are a number of us still running version 2.5, so the old contribution notes are still available for most of this stuff, at least for those entered prior to Invelos going live. That is prima facia evidence that documentation was or was not provided. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:
Quote:
Sorry I am late to this party but a couple of observations. Many times I have seen repeated it is illegal data because there is no source in any contribution notes. When this and many other titles were released YOU COULD NOT GIVE A SOURCE OR CONTRIBUTION NOTES FOR AN INITIAL SUBMISSION. This was a recent change and a recent requirement for initial submissions to have sources. So there will be thousands of titles like this and it would be very dangerous to forget this. In many cases the data could have been in the initial submission.
There are rules that do apply and that is you may remove uncredited but it has to be undocumented AND from a 3rd party database. AND means that both have to exist before the data can be removed as I understand it. If the person wants to remove it in the contribution notes it should show that it is undicumented and the 3rd party database that was clearly used.
While it is true that many titles were slipped through without notes when Invelos first went live, that still doesn't excuse contributing illegal data. There has always been a prohibition on doing that, so if we couldn't contribute notes, the screeners should have paid more attention and disallowed those profiles that weren't properly documented. Whether or not it is from a 3rd party database in such cases is irrelevant. No documentation is no documentation, so where the data came from or how good it might be is of no import. Its like the chain of evidence in a criminal case. If you can't document where the evidence came from or how it was handled and stored prior to court, it is inadmissible even if it is good evidence. Good or bad, data without documentation is inadmissible in DVDP.
In addition, there are a number of us still running version 2.5, so the old contribution notes are still available for most of this stuff, at least for those entered prior to Invelos going live. That is prima facia evidence that documentation was or was not provided. John, You should re-read his post. He's referring to new submissions that before recently did not require contribution notes. Perhaps you misread  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|