Bigdaddy:

You are missing the point, this is simply about a previous Contribution with absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION. I don't subscribe to the theory that such data once accepted is correct. Don't point at me, and i have NEVER ever told any user to blindly trust even my own work, I am human and i make mistakes, but 5that is not what this was about. Undocumented data is not GOOD data, it in fact is no better than the data which can be pulled from a garbage can.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
I just finally sat through the first 12 pages, then lost all patience and skipped to the end.

In that case you missed on the great plot twist later on where it turns out Skippy is actually one of Gerri's split personalities (his "holidays" coincide with her going back on the medication) and she has Ken trapped in an abandoned well in the cellar: "it learns the android language, or it gets the hose."

   

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Undocumented data is not GOOD data, it in fact is no better than the data which can be pulled from a garbage can.

Apart from in this case where the undocumented (by your standards) data was good data and the documented data (from you) was falsified and incorrect. Just because it's undocumented (by your standards, not by Invelos) doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Sure, more documentation would've been nice but you tried to screw members out of good data. Whether that data got there with the right documentation is a different issue and it looks like Invelos think it was documented well enough or the screeners (Ken and Gerri, I call bs on there being other screeners) would have declined it.

The simple and most important answer for all users of Ken and Gerri's database: Ken, Gerri and/or the screeners accepted the contribution which contained accurate data.

Don't submit inaccurate data with fabricated documentation - that is simply "BULL".

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:

...You are missing the point...

You choose to ignore and or refuse to answer the points that many have directed to you. I'm afraid it is you that is missing the point.

So, let me sum up what I feel is one of the most important points:

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
...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.

This is your response:

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
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.

First, TheMadMartian just stated that he read the rules. I also have read the rules - in fact I printed a hard copy of them and read them line by line searching for the answer.

The problem is you are projecting your opinion and preferences in the reading of the rules. Let me quote just that section

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
...in my book....

It is not up to you to decide what is or is not acceptable documentation. Let me repeat this so that I am clear. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not acceptable documentation.

This is Ken and Gerri's database - not yours. It is up to them to decide what documentation is acceptable.

I would also like answers to what has upset me more than anything.

Why did you submit fabricated documentation?

Why do you think that lying is an acceptable way to contribute to the database?

How can I ever trust you or your contributions based on your behavior and actions in this thread?

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Bigdaddy:

You are missing the point, this is simply about a previous Contribution with absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION. I don't subscribe to the theory that such data once accepted is correct. Don't point at me, and i have NEVER ever told any user to blindly trust even my own work, I am human and i make mistakes, but 5that is not what this was about. Undocumented data is not GOOD data, it in fact is no better than the data which can be pulled from a garbage can.

I get that, but if it's the right info, why take steps to make it wrong? Creating an errous profile as a form of a super-no vote?
I won't even vote no if docu isn't right but I can check myself and see info is. Then I'll leave a note with my yes vote that they should docu better. Seems like the reasonable thing to do.

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Simple answer for a number of users. Then don't submit data that you can'ty back up and don't vote Yes to Contribution such as the prior user which contained ZERO documentation. And don't 5try and tell me that undocumented is Godcd, that's simply BULL

The prior user did not use ZERO documentation. FACT.

He just didn't use what YOU consider to be good documentation. FACT.

He used enough documentation for Invelos. FACT.

The information he submitted was correct. FACT.

You tried to add incorrect information. FACT.

You fabricated notes to try and add this incorrect information. FACT.

You lied to your fellow user by falsifying notes. FACT.

Forum Moderator: Removed quote

The God Squad will probably come in and tell me off for being a meanie. FACT.