Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Kathy:

I love it, "logical groupings", is that defined somewhere in the Rules. What exactly is a logical groupings and who decides. Don't ask me, I won't defin4e it for you, though i could. There are according to the credits TWO well-defined dividers, that were handled by the filmmakers in an identical way in every respect, centering on the screen, font siz, font, color of font, all identical. Yet it is said that one is a subset of the other, and it cannot be argued that is true based on data because that is not true, it is argued based on word usage and language neither of which are provided for in the Rules.

Now Kathy with all due respect and I do not mean to insult though this will come off harshly. The only possibility could be under "logical grouping" which is not defined. When did you and the others acquire this abilty to be able to define an undefined term. Without a definition of the term by Ken it is meaningless, kind of like common sense, no two people on the planet will have exactly the same view of common sense. This is why I do not interpret, I follow the data and the Rule and I simply don't see where the rule gives you the ability to create the interpretation you are attempting to rationalize.

I will submit contributions according to the rules as best I can. There will be times that people will not read the rules the same way.

In these cases, if Ken does not weigh in then I will let the screeners accept or decline the additions/changes as they see fit.

I do not take votes personal whether they are in agreement with me or not. There is a lock available to anyone, myself included, to use if we do not agree with the judgment of the screeners.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Duh. I knew that, Whether or not i have seen the movie is not relevant, fact is , yes. Richard Todd is one of my favorite actors of the 1950s period. That does n't change anything, the Rules are what they are for Contribution and they do NT make any provision for this sort of interpretation, absolutely NONE. I don't care about your, north or even The martian's belief of interpreting the data. the Rules do not permit it, for contribution, Locally I don't care.

You like everyone else present your argument while refusing to answer mine...because you can't, this is the normal state of affairs in profiler. Now Antares you have admitted that I am correct,  and your argument has already been taken apart, relative to contributions. As I said, To some degree I even agree with your argument and might even do subdividers locally, but the Rules do not allow me to determine that they are and i would not contribute them and anyone who would....well, what can i say, the Rules are the Rules. Since just the othe day martian was telling me something very similar, he wants free reign to interpret when he wants to. Nope, inconsistent and doesn't work for me.

You know, at first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have learned to respond to a civil post in a non-condescending manner since your involuntary sabbatical. But as I stated on another forum, a leopard never changes its spots, and true to form, inch by inch and post by post, you're reverting back to the same old, same old.

OK, you win, enjoy your hollow victory.   

I will not partake in your histrionics anymore.

Thank you Antares, your attack, only cements the fact that you have NO valid argument to present, so you are forced to fall back to personal and degrading comments. How sad. You also ASSume far too much.

If a movie has a cast list, with no roles associated, how do you attribute the roles?

If you do  not "Know" the roles, how do you find them out?

The answer is obvious, you watch the movie.  Within the movie, in most cases, you can find a role to attribute to any given member of the cast.  Did you know before you watched the movie?  Of course not.  How could you?

Do you ever verify "uncredited" cast?

And as far as name parsing, how do you "know" that it is H//BC.  You will argue, that it is H//BC, because of personal knowledge that you have acquired. 


By your statements in this thread, you could never enter it as H//BC.  you would have to enter it as H/B/C (your stated starting point), no matter what you knew, from what ever source.

So, yes, you do apply your personal knowledge to your contributions.  Look at your fervent arguments about WDHE.  That is personal knowledge by your own admission.

So in the end, we do apply acquired knowledge (all of us) to the data, to make sure that it is correct within the scope of the rules. 

You say there is nothing in the rules dealing with word usage.  On this point I will agree.  There is nothing for or against such usage.  You state, since it is not stated, it can't be.  Others state since it is not stated, it can be.  Who is right?

You claim that you have seen this movie.  Well so have I.  I can make the statement, that according to the movie, "His Crew" is part of the squadron.  I acquired this knowledge from viewing the movie, and applying that knowledge to what I see in the credits.  It is simple.

If we can not use our intellect for items like this, then the data we enter truly has no meaning or context. It become letters in a file, with no reference.  I can not accept that.  That is not the reason I do this.

Charlie.

Charlie:

If there are no Ro;es, the rules tell me what to do about that..

Yes I verify (uncredited) from time to time within the Rules.

No I would not argue that it is H//BC based upon personal knowledge, I would provide documentation that it should be H//BC Which BTW I DID. arrogance is trying to make someone beluieve that one has knowledge which it is impossible to possess or perhaps a tad hard to swallow. I always rpovide documentation, including if I use it CLT results not just noting the CLT was used.

Nice try though. I NEVER function in the any ways you describe.

Kathy:

A debate is an argument. A debate is not running from it by sayin we have to agree to disagree. That's fine, but as i said, you present an argument and I will take the argument and present a ciounter. This was doen numerous times, you cannot convince me that you won the argument based on numbers, there are too many users who simply will ioppose anything i say and they never try and debate, like Antares for example. The side you have supported, kathy, has said but ONE singkle thing, which i have taken apart and challenged,  not a single user has even tried to challenge what i have said...because frankly you can't, it simply is not in the Rules.. Simply saying that the Rules can be interpreted differently is not an argument, especially when you are gouing to try, as you did, to use "logical groupings" which is not even defined or clarified in the Rules. What does it mean.? I am not even going to attempt to define it, though i could. If the best argument that you can produce is what you have presented then you haven't won the argument, because i have literally dismantled yiours, before you ever got into it. It simply doesn't hold water.<shrugs>

OK..

In the whole scope of what is the rules...

Concerning the question of the original OP, where is it written one way or another, that this is allowed or not.

You contend, that since it is not in the rules, and the rules are absolute, that it cannot be done. 

I contend, that it does not state anything about the situation of nesting dividers.  Not 1 word of what should be done if we need groups within groups.

By your own statement, this needs to be handled with nested dividers.  So by your own statement, "His Crew" is part of "the squadron".

So where in the rules, does it state what to do about nesting.  Nesting implies that I have 1 group within another.  Therefore to make the data whole, both the parent and child need to be represented. 

There has been at least 1 discussion concerning nested dividers.  There wasn't a final decision in that discussion, only a suggestion.  It needs to be dealt with.

To place "His Crew" within a separate divider, then nothing else below it for the rest of the squadron, decouples the information from the data that is represented.  You are one that argues about adding context. 

To enter it as

Squadron
  1 name
His team
  6 names
end

rest of squadron

decouples the actors for the rest of the squadron, from that very data that we are trying to link it to.  The very fact that they are part of the squadron, is the data that we must be capturing.  You want to separate that information, because of your interpretation of a rule that does not exist.  Let me repeat that

There is no rule that exists concerning what to do when nested dividers are necessary

Charlie

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
The Martian had it closer agree to disagree. But given that I answered his comments and he has not answered mine, that only further convinces me that I AM RIGHT, he simply has no argument to present, and i have countered his whether he likes it or not.

Just so there is no mistake, I haven't answered your comments because I don't feel like going around in circles with you.  You haven't 'countered mine', you just offered a different opinion supported by nothing other that "because I say so."  I am sorry, but that is a fact.