Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
I trust no one that refuses to provide source data, Rick. No one. If you tell me that you have extensively researched on the internet and use Invelos's own CLT.   Then you better provide the data to back it up, not just the claim. Telling me it is so because you say it is so doesn't wash, EVER. If you can't take the keystrokes to provide some of the backup for your alleged intente research or your CLT results, then as far as I am concerned your are making it al up and lying to everyone, Invelos' screeners especially.

Skip

I say that jumping out of a 6 story window is not a good idea. I have extensively researched it but I point blank refuse to include the details of my research. I now put you to proof on your above assertion. I am sure there are quite a lot of Invelos customers who would gladly let you have use of their window for your proof I am a liar

I expect your time in the ambulance will be interesting as well.
Medic:  "We need to intubate or we will lose him"
Skip: "You don't honestly think I am going to just take your word for that do you?"

As for the actual topic. I'm the opposite, if someone hasn't lied to me in the past and who has no obvious motive for wanting to deceive me then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt over anything as trivial as this.

I am about to submit an uncredited cast member. A former sun jounalist turned radio host recently told a story that included him being an extra by the pool in Octopussy. I have viewed the film and there is a vague figure as he described that may be him but no where near enough detail to ID anyone. So my documentation is my word that it is the word of a journalist LOL I doubt that meets your standards. BUT it's one of the reasons I like this kind of thing. Film trivia is of interest to me and a lot surrounds cameos and uncredited cast.

I may not be alone.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Kulju:

In my book, a user such as I described is not doing anything, he wants to make people beklieve he is researching and checking. Why would you go to all that work and refuse to provide the source data. In short, i don't trust it and I think I am being lied to and i will never vete Yes to such tripe. If Ken is willing to accept it that is fimne but mine is the ultimate vote...I control whether or not such garbage becomes a part of my data base and it won't , I won't vote Yes nor will I accept it.  In short, don't lie to me.

Skip

Skip, you are assuming he is doing nothing, you do not have proof for this , so a NO vote is a violation

cheers
Donnie

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
No, Donnie, i don't believe it is and i will continue to vote No for anybody who submits such shoddy notes. If anyone refuses to rpovide the information from their research or at least the CLT resuklts, their work has no business in the database, I don't care who they are or think they are. It is offensive every time I see such notes. Even Wikipedia provides better documentation for some of their articles than that.

It's no more data taken from a garbage can.

Skip

You have no basis in the rules for doing so. Ken himself has stated that the research need not be provided unless there is a dispute over the identity of the name. The rules say to use the CLT. If someone states they've used the CLT, they've satisfied the rule and Ken's clarification (notwithstanding a name dispute).

Fortunately Invelos has a way of tracking those who vote NO based on their own personal preferences and not what Ken himself has stated is acceptable. Eventually their votes don't mean much if they continually vote NO against perfectly acceptable submissions. 

Whether I agree with you is irrelevant. Ken has stated what HE requires. It's his program. If it's good enough for him that's good enough for me.

I personally do like others have suggested and will vote neutral since a NO vote is going against Invelos' requirements. You are, as you correctly pointed out, free to vote however you wish.

Here Rick
some oh so valuable notes

"Two "as credited" cast corrections."

There is no source for his As Credited data, did it come from the crdeits, his imagination or worse yet the way he wants the data to look. I can't tell...can you.

Skip

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
NOT in my book. I call it slovenly work and i will never support, James. I'll give you, reluctantly, that you don't have to list NameA=NameB verification. But yhou better list CLT results, I'll not accept undocumented work and no users say so is good enough, especially since there is NO good reason for the user to include such information save for two, the user is either lazy or he is not doing the research and is merely covering up. I find the behavior reprehnsible, arrogant and very very childish, and it offends and angers me every time i see a user engage in it. It offends me to even have to discuss it, it just downright insulting, and yes i will say that I think any such user is out and out lying.

James you are welcome to yor opinion, and I'll thank you to allow me mine.

Skip

I gave no opinion. I stated a fact about the rules and a fact about Ken's statements.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Here Rick
some oh so valuable notes

"Two "as credited" cast corrections."

There is no source for his As Credited data, did it come from the crdeits, his imagination or worse yet the way he wants the data to look. I can't tell...can you.

Skip

If we have become so wrapped around the axle that we don't know what "as credited" means (a phrase that I believe you have taken credit for?), then we are in trouble.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
You have no basis in the rules for doing so. Ken himself has stated that the research need not be provided unless there is a dispute over the identity of the name. The rules say to use the CLT. If someone states they've used the CLT, they've satisfied the rule and Ken's clarification (notwithstanding a name dispute).

As much as I don't like it, and I don't, I agree that Ken has made his position quite clear.  In this thread he said, "It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT."  That means all you have to do is use the CLT, not provide the results, just use it.

Anyone who has seen one of my contributions knows what kind of notes I prefer...very detailed.  While I can impose that standard on myself, I can't impose it on any other user.  As Ken said, in the same post as above, "Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data."  While I don't agree, I can't go against that.  This is his house and, if I wan't to stay here, I have to follow his rules.