Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
i am going by the facts of what is in the database

Same here.

Not to worry: at some point, someone will prove that I'm right. That shouldn't be too hard, because it actually is right... I just don't understand why you're wasting so much energy on something that deep down, you too already know is wrong.

That I don't understand. But hey, that's probably just me.

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Not to worry: at some point, someone will prove that I'm right.

Because YOU can't  

Oh, if I can get 'Blue Murder' on the cheap, I most certainly will...

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
if I can get 'Blue Murder' on the cheap, I most certainly will...

Amazon

Vincent: Series 2 ep. 3: Liz Banks

She is also credited as Elizabeth in Lovejoy Season 6 E10 but that is still awaiting a full profile

Blue Murder
LIZ BANKS as Nurse Dawn Langan

Just flew over it, but this could be her:

Updated the 1st post of this thread with the latest findings. And there we are: everything played out exactly the way I said right from the start.

Of course there's always the possibility of other/new credits surfacing, but my statements in this thread were purely about the current situation, based on her credits that are in the database right now. It's now been proved that those statements were 100% accurate.

The thing that baffles me is this. Invelos requires the contributor of a new birth year to document it's unmistakeable need, and therefore it's validity. Note that we've seen many a thread of people complaining that their BY contributions were declined as a result of Invelos's very strict demands in that regard. However, in this case, the unmistakeable need for this birth year was not documented - it couldn't be, because it is, as the findings in this thread show, not needed at all. Still, the contribution slipped through. But what happens? The "bad" data that slipped through is suddenly taken for gospel, no questions asked, and the rest of us are supposed to jump through hoops in order to clean it up again. I'm sorry, but that all feels a bit backwards to me. That is, apart from the tone of some of the posts, the main problem I have with this whole issue.

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
you were not right from the start you GUESSED right from the start

Not at all. Instead, you're the one that was guessing. Case in point: you submitted the birth year because you GUESSED it was needed. But it wasn't. I saw through that immediately, and you don't seem to coping very well with that little disappointment. The simple fact is that you GUESSED wrong, and that I was 100% right all along.

Still, as I stated earlier, of course there's always the possibility of other/new credits surfacing which may or may not change things: that applies to every common name balance. Nothing new there. That doesn't change the fact that at this time, you were simply flat-out wrong. You may try to hide that fact under a lot of obnoxious behaviour, but it's still painfully obvious...