Kathy:

Learn to speak the truth yourself. You are not the thought police, nor are you on Invelos' payroll, but sure do act like you are. Nor did you have any hand in the design of the Rules, but you seem to believe that you did.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Only AFTER you were taught how to find it, prior to that you were clueless. And the last Contributor included NO SUCH hard data or I would have voted yes. Atleast learn the basics before you open your trap, please.

So why didn't you withdraw the submission after you were shown that it was incorrect?

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Only AFTER you were taught how to find it, prior to that you were clueless. And the last Contributor included NO SUCH hard data or I would have voted yes. Atleast learn the basics before you open your trap, please.

Had you stopped at voting 'no', there wouldn't have been a problem.  The problem was that you were changing correct data, to incorrect data, simply because you didn't like the notes.  Please show me the rule that allows you to do that.  As I said before, I have read the rules more times than I can count and have yet to find it.

It's called supplying the verification method. A guess such as made by the user does not represent the verification. Now as to why I didn't stop at simply voting No, I didn't bring it to the Forums now did I.. Nor did I respond right away to the OP, only after he tried to screen caps of two different images  and then demonstrated that he had no clue about using a basic too did I feel it was proper to respond. But even then while  was shocked at the ummmm. and it was the OP who started with the insulting remarks (mild initially but insulting nonetheless), not I. So....sorry pal

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Kathy:

Learn to speak the truth yourself.

I have posted nothing but the truth.

It might be, based on your own words and actions, you don't know what telling the truth is.



Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:

You are not the thought police, nor are you on Invelos' payroll, but sure do act like you are.

"You are not the thought police, nor are you on Invelos' payroll, but sure do act like you are.  "

My friend, then you simply haven't read the Rules. The Rules ask for a verification method and in my book that means HARD DATA not someone's "it is because I say so". You are simply trying to turn this a discussion that others, who are clueless, have already embarked upon, instead of what it was about. And no, I am not going to explain it again. I will simply say that tools are available that will provide data instead of opinion and that is ALL that I ask for. I am not interested in someone's belief on tech issues which tools will provide hard answers to. I have seen too many people over the years fail to comprehend Anamorphic vs. Non=Anamorphic, Dpolby 2.0 Surround from Dolby Stereo or even worse Dolby 2.0 Mono, and as a result because of this lack of comprehension we have a lot of bad data in the system. Just give me FACTUAL data, not opinion-based data.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
My friend, then you simply haven't read the Rules.

As I said, I have read them more times than I can count...just re-read them as a matter of fact.

Quote:
The Rules ask for a verification method and in my book that means HARD DATA not someone's "it is because I say so".

I mentioned both of these points earlier in this thread.  The original contributor followed the rules.  He stated that he put the DVD into his player and noted that it wasn't anamorphic.  That, no matter how you slice it, is a verification method.  It may not be the verification method you want, but the rules don't require that he do it the way you want it done.  If you don't like the verification method, which it is clear that you don't, you are allowed to vote 'no'.  What you aren't allowed to do, unless I have missed the rule, is submit a change based on that fact alone.  Since that is what you did, and you seem to think it is allowed by the rules, please show me that rule.

Quote:
You are simply trying to turn this a discussion that others, who are clueless, have already embarked upon, instead of what it was about. And no, I am not going to explain it again.

I am not trying to turn this discussion into anything.  You made a contribution that replaced correct data, with incorrect data.  What I am trying to ascertain, is what rule allows you to do that, because I can't find it.

Quote:
I will simply say that tools are available that will provide data instead of opinion and that is ALL that I ask for. I am not interested in someone's belief on tech issues which tools will provide hard answers to. I have seen too many people over the years fail to comprehend Anamorphic vs. Non=Anamorphic, Dpolby 2.0 Surround from Dolby Stereo or even worse Dolby 2.0 Mono, and as a result because of this lack of comprehension we have a lot of bad data in the system. Just give me FACTUAL data, not opinion-based data.

While I understand what you want, the rules require none of that.  The rules simply ask that we "include your verification method."  They don't tell us to use specific tools.  They don't tell us to use the tools that Skip wants...or the tools that hal wants...or the tools that Ace wants...or the tools that Martian wants.  They simply tell us to "include your verification method" so that other users, and Invelos, can decide whether or not to accept the contribution.  As I said, if you don't like the verification method, your only option is to vote 'no'.  If other users, and Invelos, don't agree, that's the end of it.

Are y'all having fun yet?