Skip,

You contribution notes for Terms of Endearment ends with this disclaimer:

Quote:
Source for data is R1 US release 097360-140743 If there is any variation in release data please let me know

So clearly you admit that your data may be wrong. You acknowledge that the credits on the R2 release may be different than the credits on the one you have.

I think the rules are crystal clear that you should take the information from the film as it appears on the DVD in question, not from any other version that you may have.

I have no problem with you wanting to improve the database. I do find it bothersome that you do it in a way that may set an unwanted precedence. I would have thought that you would understand this concern since you have spoken quite vocally against opening "cans of worms" on many previous occasions.

It's sad that you feel that you have to accuse me of "sitting back and wringing your hands" for voicing such concerns... 

I notice, Skip, that you are completely ignoring my last post in this thread which clearly states that what you are doing is a violation of the Rules. 

You keep referring to bending the Rules and the is patently UNTRUE. There is NOWHERE in the Rules that exists any statement such as you think, you are applying an interpretation YOURS and I am applying an interpretation MINE, The difference is that mine hopefully will result in a better database for all of us. I am doing as the Rule states, which I use the film credits PERIOD and ALWAYS. Your interpretation which is certainly logical does NOT take precedence over mine, I will not bow at the feet of Gunnar, especially if it we means we are STUCK with this problem. I have recognized the problem and I have come up with a solution that WE as a TEAM of users can execute, any other answer is dependent on waiting for Ken, which I think we all know can take quite some time.

I will tell you what i told Hal, so far all you done is complained, you hgave not shown any recognition of the problem nor any kind of a solution. If you have one let's hear it, otherwise....

BTW Gunnar, we can agree to disagree. But I suggest you find some other words to use bt continually claiming that the Rules say something they do NOT say and that I am breaking the Rules. I find it insulting and it makes me far angrier than you can possibly imagine.

Skip

Skip,

You keep avoiding commenting what Hal has pointed out:

Quote:
always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

This is a clear indication that the intent of the rules is to take the cast and crew from the actual DVD, not from any other version of the film that you may own.

You seem to be so locked into your quest that you cannot see that there are legitimate concerns over what you are doing. You assume that the cast and crew credits are identical between different releases of a film. If it is ok to make that assumption, what other assumptions are also ok to make?

Can we assume that the running time is the same for different releases of the same film within the same region (where the PAL sppedup doesn't become an issue)? Can we assume that a film that is released on DVD at the same time by the same studio in different regions has the same aspect ratio? The same audio specs?

I think that both you and I would answer a resounding NO to all these. So the question becomes - where do you draw the line? If the actual DVD is not required as the source for cast and crew, who is to say what other information may be gleaned from other sources?

Quote:
so far all you done is complained, you hgave not shown any recognition of the problem

That is just untrue and insulting! I said "if Ken would modify the rules to explicitly allow what you are doing, I would applaud your effort." That is clearly an acknowledgment of the problem.

Quote:
nor any kind of a solution.

Are you saying that we cannot disagree with your methods unless we have a better solution?

Gunnar:

What do you NOT comprehend. I am using the DVD, the one I happen to own. It does not go any further than that. Who are you to try and tell ME what the intent of the Rules is, you have a pair, sir.

What do you not comprehend about what I have previously stat4ed about Hollywood using or not multi-creds. I know you are not this dense, Gunnar, though sometimes you do give me pause.

I am not addressing ANY issue other than Cast and Crew data, so don't try and blow this out of proportion, now kindly GO AWAY.

Yo don't have a better solution, you don't have a solution AT ALL. All you can do is whine which you are doing exceedingly well. Now please, I told you you were making me angrier than can possibly imagine.

Skip                  

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Rho:

I would mark it for deletion if i was more certain of it. I am asking for help in this area, you have some level expertise in this area perhaps you could use that knowledge more proiductively

Skip

If I stumble over a legacy profile which I'm sure that it is illegitimate, I will of course mark it for deletion. Until that happens by me or somebody else, I ask you to leave those suspicious profiles alone. Maybe some day Ken decides to delete all legacy profiles which have never been updated since the transfer. Your updates would make this impossible.

I'll think about that, Rho, it seems to have merit.

Skip

Just like the one I mentioned, Rho. If I ran into something like that I would not touch it.

That would be foolish. And i am neither a fool nor stupid.  Have a little faith.

Skip