| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip,
You continue to answer every post by Lopek with an insult. This is annoying to me, because I know you are not that one-dimentionally shallow. I suppect it might bother others, too.
There are times when rational people agree with people who disagree with you, even Andy. It's okay. You do not need to exercise your Pavolvian need to spew an insult at every thing Lopek posts.
Thank you. | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff | | | | Last edited: by VibroCount |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
You continue to answer every post by Lopek with an insult. This is annoying to me, because I know you are not that one-dimentionally shallow. I suppect it might bother others, too. He still does that despite me making it very clear that his ass is blocked so I won't see it anyway. What a guy.  | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | He also insults him despite the fact that he brings up a very good point.
Removing the ban does not mean we have to include them every single time. If we were then it would have been included in the rules two years ago and there wouldn't be this argument. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | But I see your offensive comments, lopek and so does ken and I would jope that one day ken will take action about comments whilst you hide behind your blocks. I will not block you because I consider it to be a childish move by someone who is not interested in debate or discussion.
Richie, they certainly are, but when they chosse to make selective comments and ignore at least half of what I am saying then i have no belief that they have any comprehension of what i am saying, or at least I am not seeing it. You want debate and discussion fine, I address the points that are raised and TRY very hard to address ALL of them.,
My apologies, Cliff, I find the behavior of such people to continue to launch denigrating and insulting attacks to be particularly offensive and ...never mind I won't finish that thought.
@North:
I am not interested in the points or comments of ANYONE who ius not willing to engage in discussion. his comments are WORTHLESS. However, North before said user ever made his comment or you yours I have several times addressed that specific comment , what I think of it and my rationale for my thoughts on it.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
You are calling the credits, based on some outside source, telecine. i have told you they are possessives here. . Let me fill one of those examples for you since you persist.
aka-Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (Complete UK Title)
They are possessives and they are allowed under the Rules and have been for Two years. Tough.
You don't get to show up and start redefining things to suit YOU. The Rulkes were developed before you were here, they are what they are and we don't use DGA or any of your other outside soiurces..
I tried being nice about this, buit we are not gong to play this is the Rule this week andnext week we may change it because some new user may come in and decide he wants it his way, and the week after that and so on. Forget it.
LOL, you don't care what Amazon has to say...why? because it doesn't fit YOUR view. Well your vierw is no more valid than is Amazon's or anyone elses's and we have one already. We don't need YOURS.
Skip Nice try Skip but I have been a user since 22 January 2001, almost as long as you. You are just wrong about what constitutes the title and the title is fundamental to any cataloguing product. It is hardly a whim of the week to want to get this most fundamental piece of information correct. The rules do not support your view of 'possessives'. As I read the rules, you would need to provide some supporting documentation to contribute them since they are not part of the title. I will be looking for any further contributions and voting on that basis. I might even have a look at some of the existing ones and make a correction or two. We'll see what sort of a whim it turns out to be. | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | You don't view them as part of the tile, my friend. That puzzles me because the 's links it directly to the title, more so than anything else which might be On the screen. It ostensibly creates one long data string, that is the very nature of possessives. It is not just a Wagon, it is Telecine's Wagon.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
You don't view them as part of the tile, my friend. That puzzles me because the 's links it directly to the title, more so than anything else which might be On the screen. It ostensibly creates one long data string, that is the very nature of possessives. It is not just a Wagon, it is Telecine's Wagon.
Skip I don't see it that way. The title would be Wagon and that is how I will be interpreting the rules. If it is not part of the title it doesn't belong in the field. It may be that Telecine's could be esatblished as a possessory credit with appropriate documentation, in which case Telecine would get a credit in the crew section in the appropriate role. For the few titles where a title includes a 'possessive', I am happy for that to go in the title field. In each case I will be dealing with it as described and voting and contributing accordingly. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
You are calling the credits, based on some outside source, telecine. i have told you they are possessives here. . Let me fill one of those examples for you since you persist. You keep saying this as if it were fact. Who decided that they were called possesives here? I don't recall that conversation. In addition, even if it was decided that we were going to call them that, who is to say we can't change it when it is discovered that it is wrong? Ken removed the case type 'Box Set' because it wasn't really a case type, it was a profile type. Just because something has been a certain way for two years doesn't make it correct. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | So you like the Whim of the Week. Well start saying good bye to contributors because there are many who will not play that stupid game.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
You don't view them as part of the tile, my friend. That puzzles me because the 's links it directly to the title, more so than anything else which might be On the screen. It ostensibly creates one long data string, that is the very nature of possessives. It is not just a Wagon, it is Telecine's Wagon.
Skip Yes, as I have explained before, the possesive needs the title to exist. The title, or in this case the wagon, does not need the possesive. It can stand on it's own. The fact that it is Telecine's Wagon doesn't change the fact that it is a wagon. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | This keeps getting lost. We've quoted this article a few times. It's the DGA's "A Film by". Here's another snippet: Quote:
Variety reported that the Writers Guild had filed papers with the court stating they were only restricting the use of four possessory credits ‹ "John Doe's the Big Name, John Doe's Film, A Film by John Doe and A Film of John Doe." It's funny how we're not getting worked up over these:  ' These are credits, not title bits. Sometimes they are in addition to the the credit we're familiar with (eg. "Directed by Steven Spielberg") and sometimes they're the only credit (eg. "William Shakespeare's...") | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd just as soon go back to the old possessives rule myself, where they were stripped off. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
I'd just as soon go back to the old possessives rule myself, where they were stripped off. I completely disagree, it would lead to the removal of correct possessives like that "Frank Miller's Sin City" giving incorrect film titles. As I recall that is exactly why it was removed in the first place. I see no need to go back either as there seems to be pretty overwhelming understanding and concensus of the current rule. Just look at the contributions that are correcting possessives at the moment and they are almost unchallenged in the votes... 90+% positive. And don't let combined threads of 20+ pages of "discussion" trick you into believing there is a great disagreement - block 2 users and you get 20 pages of agreement. | | | Andy
"Credited as" Names Database |
|