| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Exactly, Kathy! Actually, I lock everything. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: May 26, 2007 |  Posts: 186 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Is it any wonder why I lock my Titles? Nope, not at all!  | | | | "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Please show me where in the rules we are told to refer to the spine or the back cover to determine the title (except for possessives)!
It isn't in the rules but we have to use some form of reference to determine what, of all the data that is on the front cover, is the actual title. Using the spine and back makes the most sense...there's even precedent for doing so. And Ken has stated over and over that his statements in this forum are NOT to be taken as a "precedent" in any way and only apply to the specific question at hand. The Rules are the controlling authority, and since they do not say to refer to the spine or back cover in this instance, to do so holds absolutely zero weight. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Posts: 186 |
| | Posted: | | | | How about his then: Männer, die auf Ziegen starren All Regions Released: 05.08.2010 Widescreen 2.35:1 The title in the database is only "Männer, die auf Ziegen starren" but according to the cover is has to be "Männer die auf Ziegen starren: Keine Siege ohne Ziege." doesn't it? | | | | "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful." |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Sorry, but that does not follow at all. And there is precedent for including them as I pointed out earlier.
...
Ken has stated over and over that his statements in this forum are NOT to be taken as a "precedent" in any way and only apply to the specific question at hand. Now you're just grasping at straws. Quote:
The Rules are the controlling authority, and since they do not say to refer to the spine or back cover in this instance, to do so holds absolutely zero weight. Not zero weight. Those sources hold more weight than the posts of hal9g. --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | You always have to get personal, don't you scottm?
How is restating what Ken himself said "grasping at straws"? | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
You always have to get personal, don't you scottm? You have my condolences for your recent victimization. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's alright. I can assure you that I will be just fine, but thanks for your thoughtfulness.
Personal attacks are what people resort to when they have lost the argument based on facts. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Personal attacks are what people resort to when they have lost the argument based on facts. I was reminded of that yesterday when you called one of my posts "infantile" after misreading it. --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
|
| Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Posts: 186 |
| | Posted: | | | | Could you please fight your personal battles somewhere else? | | | | "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DorianGray: Quote:
Could you please fight your personal battles somewhere else? You are free to ignore. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Back to the topic. Any discussion of "NCC-1701" as part of this debate is irrelevant. Nobody would seriously argue that it is part of the title. Bringing it into the discussion is nothing more than a red herring to distract people from the real question.
I've expressed my reasons for why people who believe that "Star Trek + Star Trek Into Darkness" is part of the Title, should not be dismissed as idiots. Whether people like it or not, it is open to interpretation. The fact that you don't like one particular interpretation does not give you the right to be dismissive of people who don't agree with you. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Oh boy, the natives are getting restless - again.
And people wonder why Ken has virtually abandoned the forums??
FWIW: I believe the issue at hand can be argued both ways. As the rules are inconclusive, anyone pretending to know The Answer needs to take a close look in the mirror and ask him-/herself if that's the image of Truth. | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The fact that you don't like one particular interpretation does not give you the right to be dismissive of people who don't agree with you. Isn't calling someone's argument infantile being dismissive simply because you don't agree with it? Isn't deciding that someone's argument is a 'straw man' argument being dismissive simply because you don't agree with it?  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
Oh boy, the natives are getting restless - again.
And people wonder why Ken has virtually abandoned the forums??
FWIW: I believe the issue at hand can be argued both ways. As the rules are inconclusive, anyone pretending to know The Answer needs to take a close look in the mirror and ask him-/herself if that's the image of Truth. Just so we are clear, I don't know THE answer, but using the spine and credit block seems like the best answer in cases like this. The fact that Ken used them in a similar case just drives that home for me. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I've expressed my reasons for why people who believe that "Star Trek + Star Trek Into Darkness" is part of the Title, should not be dismissed as idiots. Since no one has done that I'm wondering why you feel the need for such expression. I for one am able to disagree with someone without thinking them an idiot. --------------- |
|