Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You owned when you accepted it as fact, and at that time it was no longer fact. So you instead of finding out FIRST you chose instead to slander me. Don't make such comments without having COMPLETE information. You knew enough abouty it to slander me.

Once again: I referred to 8ballmax's post with a very brief comment. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn't know anything more than what he wrote, and I didn't pretend to. Just to be able to come up with a fitting reply, I just now took the liberty of briefly adding the U.S. profile for 'Magnum P.I.: The Complete Sixth Season' to my collection to see what the fuss is about. For those of you who knew just as much about this as I did: Skip submitted an update which, among other things, included an incorrect change from case type "digipak + slipcover" to "slipcase". Skip has now resubmitted without this incorrect case type change. I'm glad to see that. But please understand that I knew nothing about this - I just referred to 8ballmax's post.

It's good to see that you've fixed your 'Magnum P.I.: The Complete Sixth Season' - you get a sincere "thank you" from me for that. However, if you have indeed realized that you were wrong, then why does your no-vote for 'The Cosby Show: Season 1' still stand? Just because you don't like me? Changing your 'Cosby Show' vote would have drawed my attention to your apparent change of heart. Changing a pending contribution for a DVD I don't even own didn't.

Back to the issue at hand: now that you've removed the incorrect case type change from one of your own contributions, why still vote against the same thing in one of my contributions?

I feel I need to publicly appologize to Skip for bringing our PM conversation concerning his contribution into the public forum. I should not have done that.

I was befuddled after comparing his contribution to my X-Files Season set profiles as they are the same format but set up as Digipak, Slipcover. After his explanation in PM I was all set to change my X-Files profiles to Slipcase...until I stumbled onto this thread.

Instead of bringing up our PM conversation as I did, I should have just expressed my confusion and left it at that. For this I am sorry Skip. I hope you'll accept my appology and have a happy and safe new year.

Tim:

It makes me sad you have absolutely no comprehension why you have angered me. Perhaps you will figure it out or someone will help you to understand. I will not hide behind PM Blocks, Forum Blocks or some anonymous negative vote as many are want to do. If you anger me you will deal with me...head on, my friend. And a Happy New Year to you as well.

Skip

I'll answer you Skip, but hopefully this thread will die soon. After all the rules are very clear (even though not all agree with them)

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

I certainly hope you don't believe what you wrote.

I belive every word I wrote. I don't argue just to argue. I argue because I believe in something and because I believe that I'm right here.

Quote:

There are indeed TWO different definitions for the same object. See Alien Quad defined as a Digipak (slip cover), while the same type of case for Savage Sinema is now a Slip Case.

No it's not the same case type. Alien Quad has a slip with ONE unit inside it (the digipak) while Savage Sinema has a slip with MORE than one unit inside it (the keepcases). That's the difference (and to me a very logical one)

Quote:
The definition is based on contents, which results in the bogus concept that slip case and slip cover are the same thing,  which is also on display several times and is simply bizarre.

If you by content mean the films/TV series on the DVDs, you are wrong. No where does it say that movies and TV series are to be treated differently.

If you by content refers to the inner case, you are right. That's what the rules are based on, and in my opinion it's very logical. But slip case and slip cover isn't the same thing. According to DVD Profilers definition, a slip case is a cardboard/paper cover that holds more than one inner cases. A slip over is a cardboard/paper cover that holds exactly one inner case. (Regardless of where the opening are)

To me this is very logical.

Quote:
...not be the first time that the majority has gotten their way and been wrong, calling a slip case a slip cover is simply erroneous. But like I said... no skin of my nose just another piece of data I will not Contribute to the community's loss...not mine.

I don't know if it's the majority (after all I've seen someone that agrees with you that the rules are stupid in this case), but from the last threads back in September (did you re-read them, btw?), it looks like Ken has the same understanding of covers that I have and I'm glad he has . It's just another piece of data I WILL contribute for the community's gain


MY problem with your proposal (or your idea of how things are) is that a single disc digipak will be profiled as a slip case and not a digipak. To ME that doesn't make any sense and isn't logical at all. After all it's the digipak that holds the disc, not the cardboard.

And that was my first post in the new year and hopefully my last about this topic

Happy New year to all 

(EDIT: I messed up with the definitions. I'll have to blame it on it being very late)

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
There is a reason this issue keeps coming up -- and that reason is that it has never been solved correctly, certain people's opinions notwithstanding.

Certain people's opinions? You mean the 81 voters for whom this is crystal clear?

Quoting Dvdjon:

Quote:
One must start to wonder why "rules" are made so vague that allmost everything can, and are, discussed/argued about here.

The rule seems pretty clear to me: one item in it=Slip cover, more items=Slip case. Why? Because Ken said so 

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
The rule seems pretty clear to me: one item in it=Slip cover, more items=Slip case. Why? Because Ken said so 

This is exactly what we have right now... and the way it has to be... at least until Ken says otherwise... if he chooses to do so.

I understand it.

Whether I agree with it is another thing of course, but that is immaterial given Ken has previously given us his instructions on how to work with these.