|
|
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.
|
|
| Friday August 15 01:00:28 2003 Re: Dates |
| Biff wrote:
> > Why do you care? > Oh ... I don't know. I guess I thought part of my > obligation as an editor was to make sure I was inputting > data properly ... I'd have added the date if that's > what's expected. Dates are wrong. They aren't required unless there is ambiguity. If someone feels like adding a date, why do you care? > Given this sort of response, maybe I shouldn't care. It was a serious question. You seemed to have taken great affront at this alteration. > That would seem to be the logical path to take. I'm not going to dignify this. |
| Brian R |
| Friday August 15 01:24:52 2003 Re: Dates |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > > Why do you care? > > > Oh ... I don't know. I guess I thought part of my > > obligation as an editor was to make sure I was > inputting > > data properly ... I'd have added the date if that's > > > what's expected. > > Dates are wrong. They aren't required unless there is > ambiguity. If someone feels like adding a date, why do > you care? > I just told you. I was asking a question about a matter I was unclear on ... I thought that was one of the purposes of this page. > > Given this sort of response, maybe I shouldn't care. > > > It was a serious question. You seemed to have taken > great affront at this alteration. > You have a vivid imagination. I put forward what I thought the rule was, and asked if I was mistaken ... how can that be construed as taking affront? > > That would seem to be the logical path to take. > > I'm not going to dignify this. > Come off it, Brian ... instead of simply explaining as you did above off the bat, you tap out a brusque response, and now you trot out your Pontius Pilate impression and take no responsibility for misinterpreting my question. How am I supposed to react to a terse "Why do you care?" in reply to an attempt to clarify the rules of the database? How would you have reacted? Please take a minute to think on this before posting your inevitable diss. Of course, I'd be happy to be pleasantly surprised. |
| Biff |
| Friday August 15 02:27:48 2003 "Havana"...DB entry #2613 |
|
Having just watched "Havana" on one of the Encore channels, I feel a correction should be made to DB entry #2613. The actress who gets tortured -- and later handcuffed -- by Batista's police is most definitely not Lise Cutter. Instead, it's Lena Olin, the female lead in the movie, whose character is named "Bobbie". Cutter ["Patty"] appears in a minor supporting role, but in no way does she get bound or roughed up. Olin's unpleasant torture scene comes about 50 minutes [no commercials] into the flick, and a few minutes later she appears wearing handcuffs. |
| Overlooker |
| Friday August 15 10:07:13 2003 Passport to Murder (1993) |
| Record number: 5158
Title: Passport to Murder (1993) Medium: TV Movie Actress: Connie Sellecca Description: Ms. Sellecca is handgagged on her hotel room balcony, and possibly handgagged earlier in a ladies' room. -------------- Confirming the Handgag in the Ladies'room (a very good scene). |
| Kinky-napper |
| Friday August 15 15:07:36 2003 Re: Balko - Lost In Translation? |
| "There is a list of episode title with date.
Unfortunately I cann't find any translation to
".... mons fils" (French title)" Okay, that one. This was discussed June 28th & 29th 2003. The most likely one figure it is? From our friend Peter de K: ep: "Gefährliche Vaterschaft" "Sounds like the right episode. Vaterschaft = fatherhood, so a storyline with a baby fits quite good." |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Friday August 15 15:09:44 2003 Re: [#5158]- Passport to Murder (1993) |
| Kinky-napper wrote:
> Confirming the Handgag in the Ladies'room (a very good > scene). As usual, thanx for your assist here my friend. |
| Jay L |
| Friday August 15 15:13:54 2003 Re: "Havana"...DB entry #2613 |
| Overlooker wrote:
> is most definitely not > Lise Cutter. Instead, it's Lena Olin, Got it, thanx for the assist |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Friday August 15 18:57:05 2003 Re: Balko - Lost In Translation? |
| Jay L wrote:
> "There is a list of episode title with date. > ep: "Gefährliche Vaterschaft" > "Sounds like the right episode. Vaterschaft = fatherhood, > so a storyline with a baby fits quite good." Nothing new to add here. The German ep title has not been translated literally as far as I can tell, so still guessing here. |
| Peter de K |
| Friday August 15 20:11:14 2003 Re: Dates |
| Biff wrote:
> I just told you. I was asking a question about a matter > I was unclear on ... I thought that was one of the > purposes of this page. And I answered it. I don't care, why should you? When there's no ambiguity, dates are optional. Someone felt like adding one. > You have a vivid imagination. I put forward what I > thought the rule was, and asked if I was mistaken ... how > can that be construed as taking affront? Because you constantly seem to taking affront, that's why. > Come off it, Brian ... instead of simply explaining as > you did above off the bat, you tap out a brusque > response, and now you trot out your Pontius Pilate > impression and take no responsibility for misinterpreting > my question. I see. It's perfectly horrendous for me to read something into your post, yet you blithely do the same with mine without a second thought. > How am I supposed to react to a terse "Why do you > care?" in reply to an attempt to clarify the rules > of the database? How would you have reacted? Maybe answered the damn question. > Please take a minute to think on this before posting your > inevitable diss. Again, I shan't dignify this. In fact, this is my final on the question. I don't have time for your usual. |
| Brian R |
| Friday August 15 21:02:43 2003 Re: Dates |
| Brian R wrote:
Biff wrote: > > > You have a vivid imagination. I put forward what I > > > thought the rule was, and asked if I was mistaken > ... how > > can that be construed as taking affront? > > Because you constantly seem to taking affront, that's > why. > And you constantly give it ... instead of engaging in a modicum of civility, which would avoid this sort of shit. > > Come off it, Brian ... instead of simply explaining > as > > you did above off the bat, you tap out a brusque > > response, and now you trot out your Pontius Pilate > > impression and take no responsibility for > misinterpreting > > my question. > > I see. It's perfectly horrendous for me to read > something > into your post, yet you blithely do the same with mine > without a second thought. > No blithe here ... just dealing with the empirical. You misread and then react pissily to my posts on a consistent basis, and have never copped to being in error. I take that back ... I suppose you did above. Not the most satisfactory context, however ... but it's a start. > > How am I supposed to react to a terse "Why do > you > > care?" in reply to an attempt to clarify the > rules > > of the database? How would you have reacted? > > Maybe answered the damn question. > Run a search on "dates", boychik ... I did answer it. > > Please take a minute to think on this before posting > your > > inevitable diss. > > Again, I shan't dignify this. In fact, this is my final > on the question. I don't have time for your usual. > Your imperiousness is coming along nicely ... I'm especially impressed with your use of "shan't". It's like being dissed by royalty or sumpin'. |
| Biff |
|
|