Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
Yes I did but I didn't know it was an Asylum when I did. And you won't see me using the amount of contributions as an arguement. That is what my nut job comment was directed at. Like my dad always said you can polish a turd all you want, but it's still a turd.

You are the one that said "all", that includes everyone here, not just the ones you are aiming at. I personally don't like to be called a nut job. That's just me.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
I too would like to see more participation of Invelos in their forums. Even though my theory, that one or the other clarification by Invelos would abbreviate the the discussion-process immensely, was just recently proven wrong (source: here, a clarification by Invelos was given on page 2, total length of the thread 10 pages!)

As you suggest, it's not really "clarification" that some are seeking from Invelos, it's "confirmation" for their own preconceptions.

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:
Why you refuse to back up your words by a proof?

Because I want you to remain ignorant.  I find it amusing.

I'm sure you realize this is really pathetic dear
Next time shut up if you aren't able to back up your f-u-c-k-e-e fanboy fantasy
Don't worry I ain't ignorant on the matter as I shown you two time already that Ken doesn't give any form of acceptable service in the technical support sub-forum. Continue to live in your happy happy kingdom world my friend and continue to shout your useless one-liner when you want to express your joy of being a f-u-c-k-e-e fanboy. Of course it doesn't mean we will care about what you wrote as giving proof isn't a concept you can understand...

Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
Yes I did but I didn't know it was an Asylum when I did. And you won't see me using the amount of contributions as an arguement. That is what my nut job comment was directed at. Like my dad always said you can polish a turd all you want, but it's still a turd.

You are the one that said "all", that includes everyone here, not just the ones you are aiming at. I personally don't like to be called a nut job. That's just me.

Since I usually am a nut job (I haven't bailed on this program). I can smell my own kind. Don't take it to personally. The sane ones are the minority.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
I too would like to see more participation of Invelos in their forums. Even though my theory, that one or the other clarification by Invelos would abbreviate the the discussion-process immensely, was just recently proven wrong (source: here, a clarification by Invelos was given on page 2, total length of the thread 10 pages!)

As you suggest, it's not really "clarification" that some are seeking from Invelos, it's "confirmation" for their own preconceptions.

That might be exactly the reason why my theory was proven wrong.
To me it makes absolutely no sense to yell for a clarification by the "Rule-Master" and then continue the discussion as if this clarification was never made.

The problem in this case (TRON/Tron) is that no clarification was given. Ken gave an opinion without giving any justification. What would be the rule behind this opinion? Have we to capitalize titles when they are capitalized on cover? Have we to capitalize titles that could be acronyms, even when they are not?

If you think Ken made a clarification and if you understood what he meant, please explain us, proposing a rule which would cover those cases.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
I too would like to see more participation of Invelos in their forums. Even though my theory, that one or the other clarification by Invelos would abbreviate the the discussion-process immensely, was just recently proven wrong (source: here, a clarification by Invelos was given on page 2, total length of the thread 10 pages!)

As you suggest, it's not really "clarification" that some are seeking from Invelos, it's "confirmation" for their own preconceptions.

That might be exactly the reason why my theory was proven wrong.
To me it makes absolutely no sense to yell for a clarification by the "Rule-Master" and then continue the discussion as if this clarification was never made.

The problem in this case (TRON/Tron) is that no clarification was given. Ken gave an opinion without giving any justification. What would be the rule behind this opinion? Have we to capitalize titles when they are capitalized on cover? Have we to capitalize titles that could be acronyms, even when they are not?

If you think Ken made a clarification and if you understood what he meant, please explain us, proposing a rule which would cover those cases.

Correct, Yves and that basis for the Ruling is all I have requested of Ken. There has been no justification given and only the barest hint that this does not set a precedent which is nonsense on its face. I wnat to understand what is behind the Ruling, the Rules spell out how we handle the film Tron in the Online, the Rule sspell out that we can go to the credit block BUT this only applies to possessives which is not applicable here. So what is the basis for the Ruling and how far afield are we to go in determining what we THINK a title is or is not. The copyright offfice, some documenmtary or other and whom do we believe when there is a conflict such as the user claiming TRON is derived from TRace ON, but the "making of" documentary on the film has the FLIMMAKER jimself making a totally different comment on the origin of the name Tron. Personally i will accept the filmmaker's word before I will accept any BS any user as I believe the filmmaker is in a much better position to know what HE was thinking about.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
If you think Ken made a clarification and if you understood what he meant, please explain us

What was clarified to me is that the Rules are flexible, and not rigid.  So based on this, my policy would be to contribute what I think is correct, lock my local, and let the screeners sort out the on-line and not worry about doing their job for them.  That last part can be a little difficult, but I'm trying.  About 90% of my votes this past year have been "Neutral".

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
What was clarified to me is that the Rules are flexible, and not rigid.  So based on this, my policy would be to contribute what I think is correct, lock my local, and let the screeners sort out the on-line and not worry about doing their job for them.  That last part can be a little difficult, but I'm trying.  About 90% of my votes this past year have been "Neutral".

---------------

Looks like the can of worms is wide open. Not sure if this is a good thing...............................