Once again you addressing intent.

I will not even bother to dignify an7y of Kathy's comments. They are way beneath her and ME> and pure unmitigated crap to boot.

What Kathy has proven is that instead of listening to someone with some knowledge and background, which would deligitimuize her own deluded belief that she has the answers, she simply wants to slander and attack someone who does have such information and whose ONLY inrterest is to try and help, she is not the first such user nor will she be the last, all too sadly

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Once again you addressing intent.

I will not even bother to dignify an7y of Kathy's comments. They are way beneath her and ME> and pure unmitigated crap to boot.

What Kathy has proven is that instead of listening to someone with some knowledge and background, which would deligitimuize her own deluded belief that she has the answers, she simply wants to slander and attack someone who does have such information and whose ONLY inrterest is to try and help, she is not the first such user nor will she be the last, all too sadly

All I have done is to use your own words and actions to illustrate exactly how well you follow your own advice regarding invelos rules.

"pure unmitigated crap"? The community can read your posts and assess your compliance and judge for themselves exactly who's comments are "crap".

You may have knowledge and background but times have changed and so has invelos. Things change as they should or they become stagnant.

The community has ideas that might enhance the program. Ideas and differences of opinion should be embraced instead of being mocked and dismissed because of “intent” and rules written long ago.

You claim to want to help but why should the community listen to someone who attacks any difference in opinions, is caught lying and refuses to admit responsibility for their actions?

The only "deluded belief" I had was in trusting you for as long as I did. You broke that trust with your lies and blatant disregard of others in the community.

You had ample opportunity to try and regain the trust and respect of many in the community. But you refuse to accept any responsibility for your actions.

For years I have been hoping that you would take steps to rectify the problem. And yes Skip I do believe you to be a problem for this community.

Let me give you a little advice based on my many years of knowledge and experience in a leadership capacity. "I'm sorry" or "I made a mistake" goes a long way in gaining people’s trust and respect.

You claim that I have "attacked" you. All I have done is to let your own words and actions speak for themselves.

You demand unmitigated compliance of the rules and the invisible "intent" of the rules. Why is it that you do not follow your own advise?

Slander: Webster’s dictionary: “words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another”. I have not lied in my post. It is your own words that is causing damage to your reputation.

My only interest is to utilize this wonderful program and to share my work with the community.

No one has more information in regards to the database than any other member of the community with the exception of Ken and Gerri.

Edit: I have wasted enough time on this. Red arrows will be forthcoming on any and all posts that attack or disrespect others in the community. I hope others do the same so that invelos can decide if further action is warranted.

BTW...you are not helping, Skip! 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
That's not the way I see it.  As I  stated to Kathy, comparing plurals of existing roles to roles which do not appear in the table at all is a specious argument.  It sounds good, but has no substance.

The same is true of your other example.  Both "Written by" and "Directed by" are in the table.

Creative Make-up is nowhere in the table.

I agree with you that "creative make-up" shouldn't be contributed, I never said it should be. What I don't like is that either we go strictly by the table for crew credits or not. There will always be arguments. If we go strictly by the table my examples shouldn't be contributed. Do you know what I trying to say? A few pages back you wrote:


Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Skip's binary approach DOES work.  You may not like it because it would exclude some legitimate credits from the online database for now, but it DOES work.  And besides that, it is exactly what the Rules tell us to do!

The current Rule IS objective and simple to use.  People simply refuse to follow it.  Leaving it open to subjective interpretation creates nothing but arguments here and pollution of the data on-line.

If it's not in the list, you enter it locally in "Custom Roles".  You have what you want and the online database only contains crew roles that match exactly to what's on the screen...just like we do for cast!  Someday (God only knows when), Ken will decide to change the current system and all those custom roles will be contributable and all your work will be sharable and we wouldn't have to go back and fix all the garbage that's been allowed to be contributed.

That clearly says that we should only enter what matches the crew list we have in the rules and nothing else but now you are saying slight variations like plural or a credit like "written and directed by" are ok to enter. Do you see that what's going on here? I am not against using the crew list exactly as listed but then it should be only that, no variations or is it that only the creators of the rules know the intend and that's when the rest of us is wrong???????

Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
That's not the way I see it.  As I  stated to Kathy, comparing plurals of existing roles to roles which do not appear in the table at all is a specious argument.  It sounds good, but has no substance.

The same is true of your other example.  Both "Written by" and "Directed by" are in the table.

Creative Make-up is nowhere in the table.

I agree with you that "creative make-up" shouldn't be contributed, I never said it should be. What I don't like is that either we go strictly by the table for crew credits or not. There will always be arguments. If we go strictly by the table my examples shouldn't be contributed. Do you know what I trying to say? A few pages back you wrote:


Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Skip's binary approach DOES work.  You may not like it because it would exclude some legitimate credits from the online database for now, but it DOES work.  And besides that, it is exactly what the Rules tell us to do!

The current Rule IS objective and simple to use.  People simply refuse to follow it.  Leaving it open to subjective interpretation creates nothing but arguments here and pollution of the data on-line.

If it's not in the list, you enter it locally in "Custom Roles".  You have what you want and the online database only contains crew roles that match exactly to what's on the screen...just like we do for cast!  Someday (God only knows when), Ken will decide to change the current system and all those custom roles will be contributable and all your work will be sharable and we wouldn't have to go back and fix all the garbage that's been allowed to be contributed.

That clearly says that we should only enter what matches the crew list we have in the rules and nothing else but now you are saying slight variations like plural or a credit like "written and directed by" are ok to enter. Do you see that what's going on here? I am not against using the crew list exactly as listed but then it should be only that, no variations or is it that only the creators of the rules know the intend and that's we the rest of us is wrong???????

I have never made the "creators of the Rules argument", and never will.

OK, I should not have used the word "exactly".  The word "and" is a conjunction, and in your example it means to associate the word "by" with both "Written" and "Directed" so the credit is "Written by" and "Directed by", both of which are in the table.

I  just don't agree with comparing these credits (or plurals) with a credit such as "Creative Make-up" or the myriad of other credits which do not appear in the table, but which are now in the database.  It is an argument which carries zero weight with me.

The only solution is open credits and the sooner the better.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
...................I  just don't agree with comparing these credits (or plurals) with a credit such as "Creative Make-up" or the myriad of other credits which do not appear in the table...........

The only solution is open credits and the sooner the better.

I fully agree with you on all of this.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I  just don't agree with comparing these credits (or plurals) with a credit such as "Creative Make-up".

Neither do I - except to show that you can't say that you only allow credits that exactly match those in the list. I'll concede that there is a big difference between plurals and "Creative Make-up". But the point is that you allow for some deviations from the list. So it's not the simple binary approach. It's a matter of deciding how much something can differ from the list and still be allowable.

Personally I would leave out "Creative Make-up", but I would give "Photographed in Technicolor" a Cinematographer credit, for example. But I can't point to anything in the rules that says that says that one is ok and the other is not. It's a judgement call. Just like allowing plurals is a judgement call.