Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I still disagree, the Rules by my reading leave room for an outside reference, ala the Copyrighted title. It is not a simple section like Take the Cover from the Front Cover.

"nclude possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.

If the only source of verification is the description of wwhat follows it, then taht comment is NOT necessary, therefore outside references are allowed.

You guys like to interpret the Rules and sit and spin frequently, that sis my take on that section and Ken or Gerri are the only people that can tell me otherwise.

Skip

You are not this thick so please stop acting like an idiot.  The phrase, "In the absence of quotes to verify," confirms that the credit block is the verification method.  To read it any other way is to read it with a specific agenda in mind...but you go ahead and continue, just know you aren't fooling anybody. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I have no agenda and I am not thick,

Isn't that what I said?  Hang on a minute while I go back and look....yep, I clearly said, "You are not this thick.." 

Quote:
Unicus and your insulting remarks are unnecessary. That IS a perfectly valid interpretation, especially based on what I learned in school all those years ago.

I think you might need to go back and take a refresher course.  The two statements are connected.  I couldn't parse it to read the way you want if I tried. 

Quote:
Since it IS a logical argument the only possible retort is one of insult.

Sorry, but it is NOT a logical argument.  It is an argument designed to get a specific result.

Quote:
I would also argue that those that take the counter argument, including you and the fish you try to throw at the argument, also have an agenda, removal of valid data which they don't like, and hide behind invalid arguments while doing so. <shrugs>

You could argue that, it would be an incorrect argument, but you are welcome to try.  Why is it an incorrect argument?  Because, for contribution purposes, I don't care one way or the other.  I simply follow the rule as it is written.

You say that Ken is the only one who can tell you your interpretation is wrong, well, have you asked him?  I have.  Pete has.  Several other people have.  I wonder why you haven't? 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Because I choose to trouble Ken and Gerri no more than I absolutely must. They have a lot of other users to deal with, I am a big boy and I am a smart boy (smareter than the average bear, boo-boo)    and I don't require my hand to be held.

I don't require my hand to be held either.  I simply wanted to know whether or not my interpretation was correct...as I am sure Pete did as well.  I do not like to support a false interpretation.  Ken has always been very accomidating when I have done this.  Sometimes my position is validated, sometimes it is not.  In this case, it was.

Quote:
Perhaps I have missed something, that wouldn't surprise me, I don't catch every ball that is thrown. But until I see something from Ken or Gerri, my interpretation is every bit as logical as the other sides. And it makes far moresense in that it involves a neutral third party source with no axe to grind, though there are those here who even try and twist that data.

It is only logical if you put your head in the sand and refuse to educate yourself...that was a metaphor, not an insult. 

I have no axe to grind and I doubt that Ken has an axe to grind.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I haven't seen anything to the contrary yet.

Sure you have! How many people disagree with you on the interpretation of that rule? If you were using logic you would say 'Hey...maybe I'm wrong on this one and I should get some clarification' and ask Ken whether you are right. You haven't done it because you know what Ken will tell you and you don't want to go along with that rule. Not that it matters...cause you're not gonna affect anything in the long run anyway.

Bodi and mdnitoil have said it all.  There is nothing more I could add.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
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.

I'm wondering if Ken experience forces him to redesign his system, because it seems like "one person's concept of accuracy" is making the database completely unusable for a lot of users here.

This thread is becoming very tiresome. After 14 pages I think we have a fairly clear understanding of how people want Star Wars to be. Please let's agree to disagree and stop with the nastiness. Thank you.