| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
OK. You didn't read very carefully your first time through.
--------------- Since I "didn't read very carefully" my first time through, it is unlikely that I'll do any better my second time through. So, why don't you just tell me what it is that I didn't read very carefully? | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
no. it was wrong.
By what standard? by the standard of using common sense to determine the title of a box set. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Even scottm would admit that his reference to NCC-1701 was a snide, sarcastic reference
Wrong. It was stated to make the point that not all text on the front cover is necessarily part of the title. The spine (and possibly the rear cover if we could see it) suggests which part of the text on the front cover is the title.
--------------- It was stated as a straw argument, and not with the belief that it is actually a part of the title, therefore, it was sarcastic! Please show me where in the rules we are told to refer to the spine or the back cover to determine the title (except for possessives)! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
no. it was wrong.
By what standard?
by the standard of using common sense to determine the title of a box set. I'll make the same challenge to you. Where in the Rules will I find this standard? | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Since I "didn't read very carefully" my first time through, it is unlikely that I'll do any better my second time through. So, why don't you just tell me what it is that I didn't read very carefully? No one suggested (snidely, sarcastically or otherwise) that NCC-1701 should be part of the title. You completely misunderstood my post. Quote:
It was stated as a straw argument, and not with the belief that it is actually a part of the title, therefore, it was sarcastic! What was stated? Exactly what did I say? I said Quote:
For the same reason we ignore "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701". Once again, no one has suggested (other than in your imagination) that NCC-1701 should be part of the title of this set. --------------- |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
no. it was wrong.
By what standard?
by the standard of using common sense to determine the title of a box set.
I'll make the same challenge to you. Where in the Rules will I find this standard? The title for a Box Set should be the title listed on the front cover. ok doesn't say to use any common sense. So if I'm a complete moron I would include the content titles even though there is a distinct title for the box set. And I would blame the rules committee and Ken for approving said rules, and exploiting my stupidity. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Since I "didn't read very carefully" my first time through, it is unlikely that I'll do any better my second time through. So, why don't you just tell me what it is that I didn't read very carefully?
No one suggested (snidely, sarcastically or otherwise) that NCC-1701 should be part of the title. You completely misunderstood my post.
Quote:
It was stated as a straw argument, and not with the belief that it is actually a part of the title, therefore, it was sarcastic!
What was stated? Exactly what did I say? I said Quote:
For the same reason we ignore "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701".
Once again, no one has suggested (other than in your imagination) that NCC-1701 should be part of the title of this set.
--------------- Or maybe NCC-1701: Star Trek Compendium is the title. Or maybe just NCC-1701. Going by the rules and not using common sense, it could.  |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | None of the rules state to use common sense, but they also don't say to be stupid with your contributions. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
The title for a Box Set should be the title listed on the front cover.
ok doesn't say to use any common sense. So if I'm a complete moron I would include the content titles even though there is a distinct title for the box set. And I would blame the rules committee and Ken for approving said rules, and exploiting my stupidity. My, my.....you should probably make sure that you have "Anger Management" in your collection. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Since I "didn't read very carefully" my first time through, it is unlikely that I'll do any better my second time through. So, why don't you just tell me what it is that I didn't read very carefully?
No one suggested (snidely, sarcastically or otherwise) that NCC-1701 should be part of the title. You completely misunderstood my post.
Quote:
It was stated as a straw argument, and not with the belief that it is actually a part of the title, therefore, it was sarcastic!
What was stated? Exactly what did I say? I said Quote:
For the same reason we ignore "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701".
Once again, no one has suggested (other than in your imagination) that NCC-1701 should be part of the title of this set.
--------------- By deductive reasoning, you are saying that if we include "Star Trek + Star Trek Into Darkness" then we would have to include "NCC-1701". It is the flip side of the same argument. Except that "Star Trek" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" are actually the TITLES of the movies included in this release. I don't recall any movie with the TITLE of "NCC-1701" being included in this release. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
The title for a Box Set should be the title listed on the front cover.
ok doesn't say to use any common sense. So if I'm a complete moron I would include the content titles even though there is a distinct title for the box set. And I would blame the rules committee and Ken for approving said rules, and exploiting my stupidity.
My, my.....you should probably make sure that you have "Anger Management" in your collection. I do and I also have Dumb and Dumber. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
By deductive reasoning, you are saying that if we include "Star Trek + Star Trek Into Darkness" then we would have to include "NCC-1701". No, I'm saying that we ignore both for the same reason -- neither are part of the title. Quote:
Except that "Star Trek" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" are actually the TITLES of the movies included in this release. I don't recall any movie with the TITLE of "NCC-1701" being included in this release. I don't believe there's a movie titled "The Compendium" included either. So what? The fact is that everyone believes that only some of the text on the front cover is The Title of the set. Since the rules aren't always entirely helpful in determining what "The Title" is, we must sometimes resort to other clues. I'm using the spine to help inform my decision, just as you must use some logic to determine that "NCC-1701" isn't part of the title. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Except that "Star Trek" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" are actually the TITLES of the movies included in this release. I don't recall any movie with the TITLE of "NCC-1701" being included in this release. And now you have answered the question of why we ignore 'Star Trek' and 'Star Trek Into Darkness'...because they are the titles of the movies included in this release, they are not the title of this release. | | | 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: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Please show me where in the rules we are told to refer to the spine or the back cover to determine the title (except for possessives)! It isn't in the rules but we have to use some form of reference to determine what, of all the data that is on the front cover, is the actual title. Using the spine and back makes the most sense...there's even precedent for doing so. | | | 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: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Is it any wonder why I lock my Titles? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Except that "Star Trek" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" are actually the TITLES of the movies included in this release. I don't recall any movie with the TITLE of "NCC-1701" being included in this release.
And now you have answered the question of why we ignore 'Star Trek' and 'Star Trek Into Darkness'...because they are the titles of the movies included in this release, they are not the title of this release. Sorry, but that does not follow at all. And there is precedent for including them as I pointed out earlier. | | | | Hal |
|