Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
I have yet to see a discussion that only concentrates on weighing the pro and con of a suggested rule change or implementation of a new rule and stays away from belittleing other users and calling their points of view inferior.

I'm talking about basic logic and common sense.  You either have it or you don't.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

Thank you for so elaborately proving my point. Darn, it must be really hard for you to think a sec or two before hitting the keys....

Are you trying to be dense on purpose, or is it just an accident of birth?  I didn't refer to anybody specifically, did I?  If you think I was, then obviously you have a guilty conscience.  Facts can be troublesome things, can't they?

As much as I like banging heads with people online, this is not one of those occasions. I'm dense on purpose sometimes, no need to be concerned about what happened on my birthday... (btw., another unnecessary snide remark, but it was expected, since I'm talking to you).

What I said to begin with does not defy logic or common sense, it's merely the way discussions are usually done, or should be. Don't bother trying to understand that concept, since it actually requires social skills, common sense, the ability to regard other people's POVs and arguments as equally worthy of consideration, and some other things as well. You seem to lack a lot of these requirements, judging from your last posts.

If you're quoting me, replying to a comment I made, and connecting a neutral remark about the sad course discussions in these forums all too often take with the challenge of me not being able to apply logic and common sense, then, yes, I do think you're referring to me (apart from maybe everyone else in general).

But then again, me not being an American, I'm probably too stupid to catch the finesse you apply to your use of the English language and am just too dumb to follow your thought patterns, due to a lack of background knowledge of American langugae culture.

And now you're probably going to back track a few posts again and tell me to wear the shoe if it fits.... don't bother...

As much as I would like to get into the subtleties of debate and the use of the artful insult, this is neither the time or place.  Suffice to say that if you didn't understand my original comment, then there probably isn't any reason to continue this anyway.  Carry on, my good man.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
The rule as it is and has been is inconsistent and does not make sense. Even now, the field is called "Produced." The year for a field with this name should come from the credits as seen from the film on the disc itself.

The rules however state to pull the first or theatrical release date. Therefore the field should be changed to "release date," "theatrical release date," or "first released."

I agree. either the rule needs to be changed, or the name of the field.