Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Ace:
Exactly where in your notes did you indicate you had looked at previous notes, your notes in fact seemed to indicate exactly the opposite. Which was why you got voted NO.

I listed the source of my data. I don't see how either the rules or common sense require that I list every step I took to try to determine why bad data had been entered. If I had found such information, I would explain what was wrong with their reasoning or why it no longer applied, but it's clearly wrong. I explained why my data was right. If you think there's some reason that the old data is correct, say what it is instead of making claims that I would know what it was if I did my research. If you find something in the notes that explains the issue, by all means, say where you found it. So far, you've done a lot of complaining about various submissions I've made. The only one where you explained your reasoning at all was M*A*S*H. In that case, your reasons were mixed with personal attacks and kind of muddled, but once people understood them, no one agreed with them. If there's something wrong with my submissions for Control Room, The Omega Man and Titanic, please explain what it is. Don't just tell em to check notes which either have no relevant information or have no obvious way to access them.

Antwerp Kathy just for the record. As usual it was not I who threw the first personal attack or insulting remark. Itvwas you.

Lol ace. I hate this allegedly smart keyboard. It should be simply And Kathy.

If my contribution notes for Titanic said

Quote:
Removed extra track. Only five audio tracks present.

instead of

Quote:
Not sure what the removed track was. Only five audio tracks present.

Would this have changed your vote? Are you ever going to explain what was wrong with my contribution instead of just asserting that something was and hyper-correcting my contribution notes?

So every submission that changes anything on an old profile (barring things like common name changes and birth-years) needs to say that the previous notes were checked to be valid?

Not every ace. Where appropriate and in the cases discussed, it is appropriate. I would back check and try to determine if there was something going on. I would, if I had access to it, check my copy, day of release to see if I could figure out if we might be dealing with a reissue or something, if I were contributing. The work falls on me as the contributor to exercise due diligence to try and make sure the change is correct.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
In short amigo communicate.clearly

You asking others to communicate clearly, man that's a classic. You even manage to type that one incorrectly.

"if mot sue dont remove dsta, syggezt reviewing previous notes perhaps even intervocative"
Is that clear?

Kulju
I am good at reading typos. It is not something that I feel the need to insult someone over, unlike you. Someone who brings nothing to any discussion he jumps in the middle of. Grow up, buddy.