Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I wouldn't take IMDBs definition of taglines as the gospel truth.
However, I do disagree with Hal that taglines never include actors names.
Chuck Norris doesn't need a weapon... he is a weapon ! (An Eye for an Eye)
Definitely a tagline.

Yes, yes...there are always exceptions.  You people love to nitpick and revel in finding ways to contradict other folks!

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't know about nitpicking or contradicting Hal, you do pretty well in that too. But your comment that the DIFFERENT typeface and color and even size did not preclude it from being part of the Overview was just silly and specious on its face . That has always been one of the primary discriminators about Overviews.

Ignoring your personal attack.....

According to what section of the Rules?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't know about nitpicking or contradicting Hal, you do pretty well in that too. But your comment that the DIFFERENT typeface and color and even size did not preclude it from being part of the Overview was just silly and specious on its face . That has always been one of the primary discriminators about Overviews.

Ignoring your personal attack.....

According to what section of the Rules?

It's in the invisible implied intent section that only a few select have the power to see.

What I meant was that those were examples of what IMDB calls taglines. But just because IMDB says so, that doesn't mean that they actually are taglines.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't know about nitpicking or contradicting Hal, you do pretty well in that too. But your comment that the DIFFERENT typeface and color and even size did not preclude it from being part of the Overview was just silly and specious on its face . That has always been one of the primary discriminators about Overviews.

Ignoring your personal attack.....

According to what section of the Rules?

It's in the invisible implied intent section that only a few select have the power to see.

I would think that instead of majking smartass comments such as this, one just might pay some attention to someone so intimately involved in the Rules development process instead that he probably has a better idea about things involving than someone such as uourself that was NEVER involved at any level. I would listen to such a person were it me, but that's me

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't know about nitpicking or contradicting Hal, you do pretty well in that too. But your comment that the DIFFERENT typeface and color and even size did not preclude it from being part of the Overview was just silly and specious on its face . That has always been one of the primary discriminators about Overviews.

Ignoring your personal attack.....

According to what section of the Rules?

It's in the invisible implied intent section that only a few select have the power to see.

I would think that instead of majking smartass comments such as this, one just might pay some attention to someone so intimately involved in the Rules development process instead that he probably has a better idea about things involving than someone such as uourself that was NEVER involved at any level. I would listen to such a person were it me, but that's me

I was referring to your reference that my comments were "silly and specious"!  And just FYI, use of the word specious does not even apply in this circumstance, but I know how you like to take other people's words and try to turn them around on them.

Still waiting for you to answer my earlier question.

According to what section of the Rules?

See my comment to Alien. Hal, what section of tghe Rules do you think allows to make the kind of remarks you do. How many times over the last five or six years has this exact topic come up and how many times have I said the same thing. Typeface, color and size do matter and do help in determining what is part of an Overview or not, that is assuming that one even understamds what an Overview IS, and some apparently do niot. If one really reads Overviews then one understands that an Overview is not much more than a plot summary. The paragraph in question has no relation to any plot summary, it is a marketing statetment about the film stars nothing more or less. but certainly NOT part of a plot summary or Overview. Some of us instead of nitpicking or being contradictory seem to take delight in trying to take asvantage of ANY and EVERY little hole in the Rules that they can find to attempt to impose their own will upon the Online, some even invent arguments which usually don't hold water.

It reminds me of your argument about possessives Hal, which was simply that you didn't like them. That was better than some who argued that they couldn't get them to sort the way they wanted them to, which was not only incredibly silly but also incredibly easy to do, But instead of going with whatever the front cover said we imvented a method to exclude legitimate data, but data that some didn't like or couldn't figure out how to deal with, <shrugs>

Nor is there anything to support yours. Just your gobbledygook.No real background