Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Well, at least I now know which contributions I have to take a longer look at.  I guess something good came out of this. 

Me too.  You are  ignoring part of the Rules as well.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Sorry, but that simply isn't true.  As I already explained...though I think James did a better job of it...the notes allow us to enter those credits.

Now I'm confused. 

If you agree with my long-winded analysis, then you agree that the Notes Column is irrelevant when determining allowable credits. The only column that the Rules tell us to use is the "Credited As" column.

But we know from several discussions that this column can not be meant to be concluding. Specially since there are empty entries.

If you had read my whole post on this, you would see that I addressed the "empty" ones.

You have addressed the empty ones (in another post, not the one I've quoted). But they are not addressed in the rules. Therefore my claim that the column can not be concluding still stands.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:


Have I ever claimed otherwise?  I freely admit that I ignore the rule that can't be followed, and follow the crew credit chart instead.  As far as I can tell, every single user does the same thing.  If they didn't, we wouldn't have any crew credits, now would we?

The problem I have with your, and T!M's, contributions is you are entering credits that aren't supported by either the rule or the chart.  You can't say the same thing about mine as my contributions will always match the chart.

In other words, you can decide which parts of the Rules to ignore because you cannot figure out how to apply them, but others do not have the same liberty.

Whatever.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
In other words, you can decide which parts of the Rules to ignore because you cannot figure out how to apply them, but others do not have the same liberty.

It has nothing to do with what I can or can not figure out, nice try at an insult though. 

Spin it any way you want, the rule...as written...means we have no crew data.  Rather than making assumptions as to what it might mean or what was and wasn't a mistake, I decided to ignore the written portion of the rule.  Again, something I freely admit.

Quote:
Whatever.

Once again, your position is that it is OK for you to read the Rules, make a decision that parts are incompatible and then make your personal choice about which part to follow and which part to ignore.

At the same time, you more than imply that others cannot do the same thing when it does not align with your interpretation of what is correct.

And you see no inconsistency with that.

This is beginning to remind me other a certain other intractable user around here.

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
This is beginning to remind me other a certain other intractable user around here.

Funnily I have the same impression, but not concerning Unicus

I'd just like to understand why one user's personal interpretation of the Rules should override another's.

Technically, neither is correct.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Once again, your position is that it is OK for you to read the Rules, make a decision that parts are incompatible and then make your personal choice about which part to follow and which part to ignore.

It isn't a decision that I made.  The fact that the rule tells us to use a column that doesn't exist makes them incompatible.  The fact that you are making assumptions as to what it is supposed to mean doesn't change anything.

Quote:
At the same time, you more than imply that others cannot do the same thing when it does not align with your interpretation of what is correct.

I implied nothing of the sort.  Let's be clear, yet again, the 'correct' way would be for us to follow the rule as written...which would mean no crew data.  This is a fact that you have admitted.  Anything that differs from that is, by default, incorrect.

That means your interpretation is incorrect and my interpretation is incorrect...again, something I have freely admitted.

Quote:
And you see no inconsistency with that.

There is no inconsistency because I didn't do what you claim I did.  I never said your way was wrong and my way was right.  I simply said that I didn't agree with your method, for reasons that I outlined, and that mine was the simplest.

Quote:
This is beginning to remind me other a certain other intractable user around here.

Oh please, at least I picked a position and stuck with it.  You, on the other hand, have admitted to violating your own interpretation of the rule.  Talk about inconsistency. 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Yes, of course you are right.

I already knew I was right, but thanks for admitting it. 

Quote:
Happy now?

It would be a sad day, indeed, if my happiness hinged on an internet forum.  Fortunately, for me at least, it doesn't.