Quote:
"The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover.  In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible."

I read that as saying that the best, most authoritative source of information is the DVD itself.  This is why when the package states one thing and the DVD another (such as audio tracks) we use the DVD as the source.

So, in this case, the DVD has 4 episodes on it, episodes which don't match what is listed on the package or the menu.  This information is verified directly from watching the DVD.  This meets the rules exactly as written: DVD as source, verified directly.

Therefore I would correct the episode titles to match what is actually on the DVD, notating in the notes that you have verified what is actually present directly by watching the DVD in question.

Quote:
Martian, you too are wrong. The rule is clear and standsand your logic fails. Here's why in summary.
We have the following
1. A printed episode list.
2. A disc menu listing episodes
The above are data per the rules
3. No on screen episode title accompanying each shoe ala Star Trek: Doomsday Machine
This provides no additional data.
4. An unsupported claim from a user that the data is wrong. Sorry DJ
These are the facts of this case. On its face per the rulesis only
one choice, the authoritative data on the disc. The unsupported claim means nothing.
Oror
Can a way be found that is within the letter and the spirit and the letter of the rules. That is what I tried to do with my suggestion. Now we do have one small issue. How to capture the correct data if it can be validated as I described and the erroneous data both to basically describe this release as avflaeed one in the event of some future correction or release, to be able to easily describe and identify the error.

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Kathy
I have no agenda, contrary to your belief. My goal and purpose today is the same that it was almost ten years ago now when I realized the problems profiler was having and the cause. Simply put we needed a set of rules w set up a common platformvfor users to contribute the same data to the central database.l. from exactly the same sourced, no interpretation or prreference allowed PERIOD, those belonged to the local side of the program. That's the simple answer, there is s more involved answer as well that I will not go into here. But the simple answer covers it.

Now if that is some sort of personal agenda then I'm a monkey's uncle. I have watched people try and poke holes in the rules within hours. On day one. My position remains the same, read the rules and follow them, don't try to interpret them, I CAN help. IfKen wants to weigh in fine, I will argue the case if I feel a need but  lens word is whatever it is, whether I agree or not conceived. Today the rules remain about 95% as they were conceived and about 92% as originally written, most changes have been evolutionary but not all.. But for you or anyone else to insinuate, and you have, that you know more about the rules than I do frankly makes my blood boil and that is when you get responses you don't like, because you don't know. That simple.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I have no agenda

Of course you do. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the hundreds of times you are the lone dissenter in discussions regarding this database.

You have even called out Ken and belittled his clarifications - you seem to think think this database is yours. It is not.

Every single community voice has as much relevance as yours. The problem is you think yours matters more - it doesn't. Just to be clear, neither does mine.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Today the rules remain about 95% as they were conceived and about 92% as originally written, most changes have been evolutionary but not all..

Please stop with this nonsense. It is irrelevant and throwing out unsubstantiated numbers that the community can not check lessens the strength of your arguments.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:

Now if that is some sort of personal agenda then I'm a monkey's uncle

Would you say that someone has a personal agenda if they change data, lie in their documentation notes and submits data not found on the DVD or DVD cover?

I would. I might not have joined as long as many, but I've been a member for over 5 years. I remember the things you've said and done. I remember the members who left because of how you treated them.

I have kept detailed notes on you and treatment of community members. Once I started to think for myself, instead of blindly trusting you, I found your treating me with the same disrespect. But, you will not force me out. If you don't want to read the truth - block me.

Or, how about if they bring others contributions to the forum in order to call the contributor out in public?

I would. But, more importantly so does Ken since he ruled that this behavior is unacceptable for his database.

I have seen you do these things, as well as countless others, that proves you have a personal agenda.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
But for you or anyone else to insinuate, and you have, that you know more about the rules than I do frankly makes my blood boil and that is when you get responses you don't like, because you don't know. That simple.

Your ability to read and understand the rules is no greater than anyone else.

The problem is you think believe you are better than anyone else and take offense when people think for themselves. "That simple"

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Kathy was wrong in her claim, I said so, so what, she thinks she git attacked. 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you attacked me - I said you called me out publicly which is why I responded.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:

You can call it what you wish. I call it direct and to the point and  no one knows better than myself. That's ot bragging its a statement of fact. Kathy was wrong in her claim, I said so, so what, she thinks she git attacked. Should I considerder Herr or yours an attack, I just consider them misguided because youu lack the neccessary background to know, so let's all nip at the heels of the one user who does have that information and whose only desire is to help. There used to two of us, but one left because blue got fed up with this kind of stuff. Like I said double if the shoe were on your foot instead of mine, I would be trying to ask questions of the one who developed the rules, instead of constantly nipping, sometimes he just might bite back and that helps no one.

I have asked you countless times to leave me alone and to block me. Since you refuse to do so - keep my name out  our your posts. Use "she" or "a community member" or whatever.  Do not address me by name ever again.

There is one final issue I wish to address before blocking you again - the longevity of your membership and how that makes your way right.

10 years ago appendectomies used to involve major surgery, a huge scar, had many complications and required a 7 day hospitalization.

Today it is an overnight procedure with few complications and a tiny incision.

It does not matter what was done years ago or who developed it. Times change and improvements are made which are often significantly better that what preceded it. Stop looking at the past and focus on the now.

<Block enabled>

Quote:
Sorry about the typo that got past me, if you only knew.

Should be as flawed.

Right now, double, we have only the users claim of an error. Is it in actuality...we don't know yet. I was trying to provide something that tied directly to the show, official website. Users claim is not documentation, nor is any third party source per rules
Why not. Let's say, for example that the disc menu was done based on production order, but the shows were collated by airtime. There is no title accompanying each show, so we don't know what is going on or even what the nature of the error is.

Right now, double, we have two matching datasets, the cover and the menu, no additional data from the episodes. There is no way a users claim can trump the only data we can usr, unless we can do something like I described. Mary Tyler Moore show had episode titles like this but not on the actual show, instead each show had a production number at the end of the credits and one could cross the production number to the title with some work. A solution is provided now let's see how that works out and talk about how to capture too competing datasets so we have the error properly documented along with correct data.

Quote:
OK, here's some proof. Season One Part One contains an episode called "Joe Knows" which is about the main character called Joe doing a webcast called "Joe Knows".

Season One Part Two supposedly contains the very same episode again ("Joe Knows") but this time it's about the other main character and her waiting for Mr. Right.

The episode that's labelled "Waiting for Mr. Right" is actually about Joe Longo's brother (i.e. the other Longo).

Quote:
Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
OK, here's some proof. Season One Part One contains an episode called "Joe Knows" which is about the main character called Joe doing a webcast called "Joe Knows".

Season One Part Two supposedly contains the very same episode again ("Joe Knows") but this time it's about the other main character and her waiting for Mr. Right.

The episode that's labelled "Waiting for Mr. Right" is actually about Joe Longo's brother (i.e. the other Longo).

...and to give some more documentation: The episode guide taken directly from ABC

That should be documentation enough. Just look at the episodes and compare with the episode guide.