Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Hal losses, but he made a nice try. The problem Hal, is that there is NOTHING presented on Screen  visually that indicates these are ANYTHING other than two dividers, the only way to make such a CLAIM is though the use of the Words and the language and that is not allowed per rule, not dis allowed either, but all the data indicates is TWO dividers, there is no offset of the two, there is no distinction between the two other than words.

Wait, what?  It's not allowed, yet it is not disallowed?  What kind of doublespeak is that?  If it is not disallowed, doesn't that mean it is allowed? 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Incorrect Martian. I DID counter your argument I gave a very detailed explanation  why you were not looking at subdividers, in addititon I explained that yours was based upon WORDS and LANGUAGE., which is NOT provided for within the Rule.

Actually, it was North and myself who pointed out that our argument was based upon words.  All you did, was claim the rules do not provide for that.

Quote:
No you jhad no argument at all, you countered niothing that i said except to repeat that it was based on words and language. It's outside of the Rules, plain and simple, they do NOT provide for your wish to create a subdivider out of whole cloth based on words and language and you have not shown me in the Rules where you believe it  does.

You keep making claims about rules, yet fail to provide the rule that supports your claim.  Once again, if you can't point me to the rule that supports your position, please stop responding to my posts.

You certainly cannot claim that the Rules do support the use of words and language. So you invalidated your own argument from the beginning. And I erepeatedly challenged you to present ecvidence from the Rules to the contrary and yo8 never did, because you can't it's not there, ANYWHERE. So you are creating something brand new out of whole cloth, that has no support in the system. And further as I said , it would be dangerous to allow such phraseology in the Rules, we have users who would jump all over such to corrupt the online to their wishes. The Online is not about opinions and personal preferences, the Online is about data. our locals is about opinion and preference and that is where you can freely exercise any arcane Rule or guide on your own data. If you THINK based on language that its a subdivider the local is the place for it. NOT the ONLINE.

Who gets to determine what language or words creates a subdivider, Martian. YOU, North...not a chance...me oh, hell no. As I have said this sort of discussion could be had about lots of various dividers. Oh joy, oh joy, more arguments is it a subdivider or isn't it, based on WORDS. Based on data it's NOT!

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
You certainly cannot claim that the Rules do support the use of words and language.

   
So we can enter all the data we want as long as we don't use any words or language?
   

I seriously  out loud on that.

       

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting the Rules:

Quote:
Dividers

Dividers allow the segregation of cast and crew into logical groupings. Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits.

Bolding by me.

The rule clearly leaves an out for entering the divider information differently than the way they appear in the actual film credits.

Since nested group dividers are the only way that the actual film dividers would make sense, and we cannot enter nested dividers due to a program limitation, then the only way to enter them into DVDP in a way that actually communicates the meaning of the dividers is as suggested by Pete and the Martian.

Per the Rules, since it is not possible to enter them in DVDP in a way that makes sense, we can enter them other than as they appear in the actual film credits.

Hal losses, but he made a nice try. The problem Hal, is that there is NOTHING presented on Screen  visually that indicates these are ANYTHING other than two dividers, the only way to make such a CLAIM is though the use of the Words and the language and that is not allowed per rule, not dis allowed either, but all the data indicates is TWO dividers, there is no offset of the two, there is no distinction between the two other than words.

The phrase "wherever possible" allows for what you call "words and language" (also known as context) to allow us to take film credits and convert them to an understandable format in DVD Profiler. Words have meaning. Data without context is useless.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
The phrase "wherever possible" allows for what you call "words and language" (also known as context) to allow us to take film credits and convert them to an understandable format in DVD Profiler. Words have meaning. Data without context is useless.

Wait...so my method is covered by the rules?  I must be losing my touch. 

I even stole from you with the "words have meaning" phrase. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I even stole from you with the "words have meaning" phrase. 

The student has become the master. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I even stole from you with the "words have meaning" phrase. 

The student has become the master. 

My young padiwans, you both have much to learn.            

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Once again it seems to be that the majority see it one way while a much smaller minority sees it another.

The forums, it seems to me, is unwilling to find any middle ground and compromise is unlikely. This is not productive and does not supply any definitive answers.

So, I will contribute based on careful analysis of the the rules. I will take "no" votes into consideration and assess the rationale.

But, if I feel that my data is correct on my understanding of the rules, I will leave my contribution as is and let the screeners make the final judgment.

I do not take votes personal and I will continue to contribute to database and the community.

I will change my position on this situation only if and when Ken or invelos makes a ruling on the subject.

QFT.