Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You do not present me a cogent argumen, hal, only fog.

Based on means the story was taken directly from the original Material, most of all the caharcters are also derived from the Original material

Suggested by, No characters, no PLOT, no Characters, no NOTHING. Oh this book is about a BIG storm, maybe we can make a movie.      

All you have convinced me of Hal, is that you have immense desire to be contrary

Skip

But "Based on" is not mentioned anywhere in the Rules, so who cares what it means!

As Snark points out the Rule simply says "adapted from another medium".  It does not define what medium and it does not define the extent of the adaptation.

The credit for the book appears in the film, therefore, it must be entered into DVDP.

I don't really care if you think my argument is cogent or not.  Perhaps it has nothing to do with my argument.

So far, you are the only person in this thread that doesn't get it.  That is somehow familiar.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
(...) The book has NOTHING to do with the film, (...)

The credit tells us something different. And the common thing has not to be a common story line. It is enough that the film makers give credit (written in the credits of the film) to the fact that they have been at least partially inspired by the book.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Hmmm that's the closest thing to a rational comment yet, snark. i have to leave, I shall cogitate

Skip

Simply amazing! 

How exactly is this different from my argument Skip. 

Let's see, Hal I believe yo began that particular comment with a comment the you know I find offensive, therefore I ended reading RIGHT THERE at that point. If you can't have discussion with ourt being aggressive, combative and/or insulkting then you are wastin our time. Red herring...indeed. I shut down as soon as i saw it.

Skip

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Looks to me like 90% of those who posted agree on the OMB credit. I believe you have your answer. 

A veritable super majority. 

Interesting, deejay. i talked abouit this point earlier. In your country how do you define consensus. We use this term a LOT aound here but there is nthing definitive. apparently you believe it lies somewhere between 60% and 90%, but where would that be, and what is your basis for that determination be. By what the sictionary says a consensus is, it could be interpreted that ONE no prevents a consensus from being reached.

I believe that there is not even a parliamentary definition of consensus in Robert's Rules of Order. I was kind of hoping there was.

In short i suggest we stop using the term. It reminds me of trying to define Common sense, which cannot be done, it means something different to everybody and is based usually on one's upbringing, yet we freely throw the term around as if it has some sort of significance. One man's Common sense is another man's garbage.

Skip        

Doc:

I have decided that OMD is fine, but for reasons which might surprise you. Let's say my base opinion hasn't changed relative to THIS film...BUT... and you know how much I hate multiple definitions. So.....

Skip

@ Skip:
First of all, my remark was a joke (as indicated by the  ).

Then, to answer your question, in Dutch "consensus" means "agreement of feelings" or "equality in views" (source: Van Dale's Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal, which is regarded as THE dictionary for the Dutch language).

Van Dale's online dictionary says "agreement of opinion" or "unanimity".

So over here it would refer to 100% agreement between all those involved.