Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Your objective has now becoime clear...destruction of the rules... what do I base that on

"Just report back which way the decision went, and we can use it as precendence on subsequent submissions."

And your response.

Will do of course

Could it not have been, just maybe that I was responding to the request to report back? Maybe? You think? 

Nice to see the return of "destruction of the rules", we have not seen that rant for some time. Like the return of an old friend! 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
So as far as you are concerned the rules be damned, if you want it and you can rationalizer your action(notice I said rationalize not justify) then its OK and there goes the Rules.

Exactly Skip, your mind reading skills are right on the money today! 

My master plan of rules destruction has been exposed. And I was so sure this SRP change was gonna do it.   

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Perhaps he is a British Spy...

I've blown my cover!

Oh, well. At least now I don't have to remember to drop the letter 'u' from colour.

Look at the notes before spouting rubbish. I had a contribution in place before yours was there - a new contribution for a title that was not in the database. Yours was the third such.

As someone had already contributed before me (and you of course) - invisible to me at the time of contribution - mine became a contribution of an existing profile when the other was accepted.

As my notes did not adequately explain what were now changes, but originally was new info, I resubmitted it with amended notes - including specifically explaining the change of SRP.

Your contribution had already been withdrawn before I did my update - I did not submit any duplicate contribution of yours, and not knowingly of the original contribution.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good red herring! 

Yes i would, richie, you notice that in my initial post i did not name names or even the title. Unlike some who like to try a rally the troops to their aide, I do not choose to do that. i brought it up as a point of discussion and education. The Rule means what it says, and how the user rationalizes his rule breaking is totally irrelevant, it is still a direct violation of the Rules.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As far as i am concerned thoise supporting you are voting in violation of the rules as well, Lopek

Your objective has now becoime clear...destruction of the rules... what do I base that on

"Just report back which way the decision went, and we can use it as precendence on subsequent submissions."

And your response.

Will do of course 

So as far as you are concerned the rules be damned, if you want it and you can rationalizer your action(notice I said rationalize not justify) then its OK and there goes the Rules.

<sigh> Why am I not surprised, in your case i can't even say i am disappointed. I have recognized this for a long time.

Skip

How do you equate Andy's agreement to report the outcome of the submission, and to my suggestion that we use it as a precedence to the destruction of the rules?
I'm suggesting we use this submission as a way of finding out exactly what Ken intends this rule to mean, regardless of which way it goes.
Despite the fact that you maintain that there is no other way of reading that rule, a number of people have noted that they have not read it the same way. Therefore the rule is not clear, so we need clarification.

I would have thought a 4 page thread might have attracted their attention and they'd be keeping an eye out for it! 

But you're right, it would be better if we got confirmation another way.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
You can't use a single submission to see what Ken and Gerri thinks. Things do slip through to much to judge it like that.

Which is why it's "good" that there is a duplicate of this situation pending now as well. 

Maybe we could go for best 2 out of 3?    Anybody got a nickel? 

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
I pressume this refers to my pre-release contribution for 28 Weeks Later which Skip has voted No for. If so it was a change from $28.99 to $28.98.

As he did not include the details, it is 024543-469902, R1-USA, so people can see the context.

Thanks, what a nice addition to my wish list!

Oops, now look at that: Another "Yes" vote for the current update...