Kathy
You are clearly taking things out of context. One of the partial quotes is clearly referring to possible handling as a boxset since it refers to the parent child relationship and handling appropriate to a boxset. I would guess that quote predates Jens rule mod.

Kathy,

Consesus from this or other threads in a way is immaterial.

The only reason for a concensus to be required is if there is abiguity in the rule.

Currently the rule states:
Sets containing the same film on multiple media types (such as a Blu-ray/DVD combo pack) are to be entered as a normal profile for the main media type (Blu-ray in this example), with all included media types checked. A combo which includes HD media (HD-DVD, Blu-ray) as well as DVD should use the details from the HD media in the main profile. However, you may add an additional profile by Disc ID for the DVD content and add this profile to the Box Set contents for the Blu-ray profile.

Now as can clearley see in the rule that the main profile is to be beased off the HD content so the people that state that Anamorphic should not be checked  is supported by the rule.

Now the only way to prove ambiguity and the need for a consensus is to show how the rule also supports the checking of Anamorphic.

So until that is done there is no real debate as far as the existing rule is interpreted.

So far those that would like anamorphic checked are stating so based on what they want to see in the data, which should not be the debate here.  The debate at the present time is what the current rule states.

But like i said before if enough people what it changed and Ken approves there is another mechanism for that.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Kathy,
Consesus from this or other threads in a way is immaterial.

I don't agree - I believe it is very important.

It helps to gauge the understanding people have of a situation.

The results can also help in suggesting and implementing change(s) to the database.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
Kathy,
Consesus from this or other threads in a way is immaterial.

I don't agree - I believe it is very important.

It helps to gauge the understanding people have of a situation.

The results can also help in suggesting and implementing change(s) to the database.

Please quote the next sentence.

Quote:

The only reason for a concensus to be required is if there is abiguity in the rule.

You are correct, but not in the context of the conversation.  If we were trying to figure out a better way to change the rule I might agree

However you are changing the subject

Now you are voting NO on contributions based on the need for a consensus.  And my point is there there is no consensus requried since there has been no proven ambuguity.

Quote:

Now the only way to prove ambiguity and the need for a consensus is to show how the rule also supports the checking of Anamorphic.

Can you show how?  No one else seems to

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:

Now you are voting NO on contributions based on the need for a consensus.  And my point is there there is no concensus requried since there has been no proven ambuguity.

The documentation those profiles states "Removed anamorphic designation as this does not apply to the main feature on the Blu-ray parent profile, only to the child DVD profile. Also see http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=649083 where there is an agreement on this in the rule interpretation."

I do not see that there is an agreement on this subject on this thread, as well as others, and I have voted "no" to alert the screeners of that fact.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:

Now you are voting NO on contributions based on the need for a consensus.  And my point is there there is no concensus requried since there has been no proven ambuguity.

The documentation those profiles states "Removed anamorphic designation as this does not apply to the main feature on the Blu-ray parent profile, only to the child DVD profile. Also see http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=649083 where there is an agreement on this in the rule interpretation."

I do not see that there is an agreement on this subject on this thread, as well as others, and I have voted "no" to alert the screeners of that fact.

  exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Tian you are 60% correct why would younit include bothe video and audio as it pertsains to the "parent". It willl apply to the bd and be different from the DVD child. And btw your reference to condescension is in your imagination, not factual. Since your reference was probably aimed at me I think I know a but more about it than thew, maybe a small touch of sarcasm. But then I am not one who is pretending that a very clear rule us not clear, it causes some wonderment and some very interesting questions come to mind but I won't go there. I will only point out the powere that profiler has with its online?local design giving the user the ability to manage his data as he wishes, a lot of these supposed controversies or attempts to muddy things up appesr to come from a desire. On the part of whoever it is to make online reflect their needs with a total disregard of how that desire might negatively impact other users, or how it would impact the online to have every user doing his own thing, btdt, I know you remember, it wasn't pretty.

I'm sorry but this is very hard to understand.

Of course there can't be agreement even when there is a clear rule. All I see are deliberate obfuscations by the usual suspects.