Quote:
My motives and actions are totally UNKNOWN to you, believe me. You don't know Jack on that subject, amigo. I can guarantee you whatever you tHINK you know is DEAD WRONG.

Skip

Quote:
Good god, could we please make a rule that says to go jump off of a bridge?  I think that'll solve a lot of these problems.  All those who can think will still be with us and a couple of others will have gone on to some pendantic afterlife.  A win/win for all involved. 

This is The Birds all over again.  Only in Profiler is a movie title not a movie title.  Only in Profiler are there "two sets of data."  There's the title and then there's whatever made up crap will fit into the narrowest possible reading of a given rule.  By all means, we should preserve both of those important pieces of information. 

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
There are several users here who just will never see the rationality. We have Rules that have seemed very clear to me for TWO years, yet i have to put up with users, some of whom worked on them, suddenly going through all kinds of gyrations and circular logic, yes I said circular, to try and circumvent them. Absolutely NONE of my positions have changed and I still say we don't know what Hollywood is going to throw at us the next time. We have a solid foundation to build on, but there are some who are determined to destroy that foundation.

You are quick to object when someone talks about your motives. Why do you malign mine? The motive is not to destroy the foundation of the rules. It's to protect the data that we have and keep it usable. The rule didn't need to mention quotes until now because it was always reasonably understood what the title was. If the rule isn't sufficient to keep you from re-doing these kinds of classic film titles, we need to adjust the rule. That's not a bad motive on my part. Stop making it seem so.

Quote:

ALL I am suggesting is an extra field to accomodate that data, it would be nice to have the community see it and say OK, and yes it is of questionable value but the As Credited concept  needs to be preserved, or else we go down a path I certainly don't want to see because I know where it leads.

The path has always been to exclude the quotes! The new path is the one to include them! The path to not go down is yours.

Really, since when? I never saw any poll or even any discussion on such until this one. Oh you are assuming...I understand now.

Quote:
No one has yet been able to give me a rational argument against it, Mark, even you. I see all the arguments about copyright, library of congress, etc, etc, etc. But that is not what the rules say.

Your argument is to include all that you see. That's not rational. There's plenty on title screens that aren't part of the title.

Where did I say that, sometimes there is material that has nothing to do with the title, like copyright information. I am saying very clearly that "Mister Roberts" IS the title dispaltyed On Screen. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

Even James, argument is nebulous at best, except about the search. He says i have yet to factually prove.....Good lord man it is on the screen, I can see them, just as I can see the possessives.

I'm not asking you to prove it's on the screen. We all see that it's on the screen. Prove that it's part of the title. You can't.

Quote:
James as near as I can figure out seems to believe that he can miraculously determine the filmmaker's intent, yet "Crocodile" Dundee would be OK.

This is not my argument. This is commonly accepted by every place that I've ever seen movie titles, including titles contributed by every user here...until "Mister Roberts". This is not me trying to make a change. This is me trying to convince you not to make the change.


WRONG again. I haven't said that, James. I am saying I see your position and in fact agree with it. But from a data viewpoint we have ON SCREEN data that we should accomodate.

Quote:
If we can get Ken to add the extra field all we need is a simple Rules revision. Instead of Rules rewrite that is easier to talk about than execiute and would be filled with so many ifs ands and buts as to be incomprehensible to many users and I am about making it as simple as possible.

Welcome to film. Welcome to language. Welcome to life. None of these things are black and white and satisfying to a data dink. We're already making all of these decisions quite nicely. What we don't need is a change of course to your method which is to record non-title data as if we were robots.

Quote:

If quiotes are displayed this way then exclude them but if they are displayed that way then they MIGHT be Ok depeng on this factor and that factor and some other factor and don't forget to check the Copyright data or the AFI or some other source. Same with possessives.With the new field it's on the screen you plug it in here and you are done the Key title field can handled in the way that James wishes and will utimately much easier to deal with.

Leave the title field alone. Don't move it to some new "Key title field". "James wishes" are handled quite nicely in the title field as it is now and as it has been practiced for the life of the DVD Profiler to date.

Will you kindly read and understand what i am saying. I am saying the new field should be On Screen, I am calling the title field the Key field because it si the field that thesearch runs from and the Awards, etc.

Quote:

Based on what i see in terms of the behavior of some users and if they are honest with themselves perhaps they will see it. If Skip says it, they immediately see red and are unable to get past that and see the logic of what is being said.

Don't flatter yourself. I will oppose anyone who wants to include the quotes.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Here is my problem with what you said, By that argument, the answer to Stef and Dan when Sound was removed should have been, NO, it has been removed, none of really wanted it. But I took a different and I thin better approach and asked them to work together to come up with a workable solution. It made no difference to me wheteher I saw the value in the Sound data or not, they wanted the data and if they could work up a plan, I would try and get to re-instate it, which they did and so did Ken. Everybody on the Team except those two was happy that Sound had been killed and din't wnat it to come back and by your standards that is the way it should have remained. Wrong attitude.

That is such a mutilated red herring.

It's only a red herring to YOU because it DEFEATS your argument. I didn't say no to any user, they wanted it they got it. You are saying NO and trying to hide behind the skirts of a majority position.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Because the Rule says take the title from the Credits, Lopek. it is not that hard to comprehend now is it. Are there lots of them I have simply overlooked for whatever reason...yes. I know that in the case of mister Roberts the quotes on the cover caught my attention and went to the film to verify it. Was I pleased about it...not particularly, but unlike you and others I understood what the Rule said to do

Where is the rule that says if quotes are on the cover and on the title screen that they are part of the title.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Let's see Lopek, Now I can take your word on that or i can listen to the men who spent 3 and a half years developing the concept, yeah long before there was a team assembled. I think I will listen to the men who laid groundwork to begin with. but thanks for the input.

Sorry. You don't get to change the way we input titles because you think your history is more important.

I am NOT saying that, James. I am saying that there are two users who know what the precise intent of every aspect of the Rules is.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
No, it says to use the title from the credits. However, if there is any doubt as to what part of the credits that constitutes the title, then there is certainly nothing in the rules that say that you cannot use the copyright information for reference.

Exactly. Perfect.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Gunnar:

:The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself. " Now I know you are going to FOCUS on should. But it's CLEAR.

Skip

He said "if there is any doubt." In the case of "Mister Roberts," it should have been more doubtful to you than it turned out to be.

This thread is moving way too quickly...

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
My motives and actions are totally UNKNOWN to you, believe me. You don't know Jack on that subject, amigo. I can guarantee you whatever you tHINK you know is DEAD WRONG.

Skip

Says the Skipocrite who assigns motives to people on a daily basis.

To go back to the pre-red herring point - the rule says to "take the title from the film credits", not "copy the title part of the film credits".

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am NOT saying that, James. I am saying that there are two users who know what the precise intent of every aspect of the Rules is.

Not sure I would call them "users", but there are only 2 people who know the intent of the rules - and that is Ken and Gerri.

You may know an intent that you had when we were writing the rules, but that is completely irrelevant. When the rules were accepted by IVS/Invelos the only important/relevant/correct intent is that which Ken/Gerri understood - and only they can speak to that.

Quote:
Now at least you and I can agree, at least in part on that. But unfortunately we have others here who have refused to listen to Ken's silent voice when he expressed it saying "it's not in the Rules". Ken is the ONLY person here that I will listen to.

Skip

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

The path has always been to exclude the quotes! The new path is the one to include them! The path to not go down is yours.

Really, since when? I never saw any poll or even any discussion on such until this one. Oh you are assuming...I understand now.

Quote:

Quote:
No one has yet been able to give me a rational argument against it, Mark, even you. I see all the arguments about copyright, library of congress, etc, etc, etc. But that is not what the rules say.

Quote:

Your argument is to include all that you see. That's not rational. There's plenty on title screens that aren't part of the title.

Where did I say that, sometimes there is material that has nothing to do with the title, like copyright information. I am saying very clearly that "Mister Roberts" IS the title dispaltyed On Screen. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am NOT saying that, James. I am saying that there are two users who know what the precise intent of every aspect of the Rules is.

Ken and Gerri?