|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Wednesday May 16 10:02:25 2007 Re: [10389] Boomtown |
| civil wrote:
> At the very Great, thanks |
| Jay L |
| Wednesday May 16 15:50:29 2007 unexpected Hornets nest |
| Brian R wrote:
> No policy decisions ... Having read, and re-read, the responses following my question I think that I am being told that it is not a problem because - a) anyone who reads and remembers the instructions can add gag -"no gag" -"not gagged" -ungagged -gagless to the Description field of the Search if they are only interested in scenes with gags b) it is not important anyway As a relative newcomer who has not contributed much to the DB, but feels they ought to, I have been a bit surprised by all this. Joe of London Perhaps best to just walk away slowly, for now |
| "I only asked" |
| Wednesday May 16 23:10:23 2007 Re: Joe- unexpected Hornets nest |
| "Having read, and re-read, the responses following my question I think that I am being told that it is not a problem because" Go slow, believe I pointed out an error reply that should have been Gag Type the current method which coaching the boys on, as I haven't made it through the entire DB Going back- "Replacement text such as "no attempt to silence her" or "no attempt to prevent speech" are rather clumsy and "not silenced" seems to me rather inappropriate for some traditional 'Hollywood gags' that in reality might only reduce the clarity of communication." This is what I said didn't matter, lines like you mentioned which some made to have fun with the boy here right after the sqwacking about all the Non-Gag scenes on Discussion. These don't throw off the search as I've coached so far, so I leave them be. |
| Jay L |
|
|