Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Oooh...Muddy Waters...GREAT singer-guitarist!

   

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
For those fans of removal of possesives and the various and sundry excuses for doing so. Here's one for you to have fun with, I am soooooo tempted, except that I know the answer already.

The Sound of Music: Five Star Collection, which includes the possesive Rodgers adn Hammerstein's
The back cover credit block says Rodgers and Hammerstein's The Sound of Music..

The recent 40th Anniversary release of the same film has a similar configuration for the front cover, while the credit block says Rodgers and Hammerstein's "The Sound of Music".

I love it; one film two different titles and you people want to believe that the Credit Block holds the keys to the title, ROFLMAO....I can't stand it.

Skip

So what's so hard about this.

The Five Star version includes the possessive and the 40th Anniversary edition doesn't.

Gee, that was tough!

EDIT: the above response was based on Skip's description, however, based on more correct information provided by others above, it seems that neither should have the possessive.  But if they were different....so what?  As Skip loves to say, "Do what you want locally"!

Gee, hal, since wehen did we start referencing OTHER credit blcoks than the one we are dealing with at the time. What is this best 3 out of 5.
          Face it, the theory BLEW UP!!!

Skip

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I said each DVD release is determined independently.  If they are different, then they are different.

Been there. Said that. Skip didn't want to listen then. I doubt he'll be more receptive now. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Gunnar:

.... and as usual my point is missed along with the total humor I find here.

Skip

You seem to say this alot.

Is it possible that people miss your points and humor because you do a lousy job of expressing them? 

That is certainly possible, hal, and I have said that. But when people profess to understand but it is clear that to me that they do not, then I try to re-explain and continue to do so until my point is gotten. Though I will confess it has become a serious point of personal amusement. The problem seems to be more a case of not wanting to get my point but simply a desire to disagree with me, usually without basis, or people thinking that they have a clue as to what makes me tick, which I also find hilarious. However, my first assumption is that the problem lies in my not being clear enough.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I said each DVD release is determined independently.  If they are different, then they are different.

Been there. Said that. Skip didn't want to listen then. I doubt he'll be more receptive now. 

You are correct, there is no problem with haveing different titles in the db.  We are, afterall, talking about the DVD title and not the film title.

That being said, the rule does allow for using font size to help determine whether or not the possessive is part of the title.  In this case it could be argued, because of the differing font size, that the possesive is not part of the title.  Anyone, with a modicum of intelligence, should have been able to figure that out. 

As I have said before, Unicus. ONE answer, not go here, then maybe go there or maybe somewhere else in search of an answer which MAY or may NOT be correct. ONE PLACE, NOT MANY, if that yields an answer we that does not please us TOUGH.

Huzzah, Unicus finally shows a little comprehension, but...not quite. Rick however as usual is DEAD WRONG.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As I have said before, Unicus. ONE answer, not go here, then maybe go there or maybe somewhere else in search of an answer which MAY or may NOT be correct. ONE PLACE, NOT MANY, if that yields an answer we that does not please us TOUGH.

Yes, that is what YOU said.  Ken, on the other hand, came up with something completely different.  There was a time when that was all that mattered to you.

Quote:
Huzzah, Unicus finally shows a little comprehension, but...not quite. Rick however as usual is DEAD WRONG.

Your assumptions make me .  I comprehend just fine, always have.  You assume I don't because I follow AND defend the rule as written.  I do not whine about not getting my way.  I really wish you would just follow the advice you give your French friend, T!M and anyone else who disagrees with a rule you do like...but I guess that is too much to hope for. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As I have said before, Unicus. ONE answer, not go here, then maybe go there or maybe somewhere else in search of an answer which MAY or may NOT be correct. ONE PLACE, NOT MANY, if that yields an answer we that does not please us TOUGH.

Yes, that is what YOU said.  Ken, on the other hand, came up with something completely different.  There was a time when that was all that mattered to you.

Quote:
Huzzah, Unicus finally shows a little comprehension, but...not quite. Rick however as usual is DEAD WRONG.

Your assumptions make me .  I comprehend just fine, always have.  You assume I don't because I follow AND defend the rule as written.  I do not whine about not getting my way.  I really wish you would just follow the advice you give your French friend, T!M and anyone else who disagrees with a rule you do like...but I guess that is too much to hope for. 

I have seen nothing from you, my friend that indicates comprehension. Which is demonstrated by this very discuyssion, you keep talking at me. Without comprehension you can't talk to me, agreement or defending my position is not my concern, I will defend my position, but comprehension is important, without we have NOTHING, which pretty well sums it up.

but all too true.

Skip