|
|
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.
|
|
| Thursday December 30 01:02:51 2004 The man behind the woman (or pig) |
| Off Jay's remarks at Discussion:
My inclination is to admit Miss Piggy ... but I'm not here to argue whether she's sufficiently anthroed to merit inclusion. I think that the fact that she's voiced by a man shouldn't factor into the equation. The character is female ... that's all that should matter. One of my toon entries is for an animated scene with a human female (Dr. Girlfriend from THE VENTURE BROTHERS) ... who's voiced by a male. I can't see any reason to jerk either of these based on the gendre of the voice talent. If you'll recall, a little while back I asked about that scene from TOTALLY SPIES dealing with a man masquerading as a woman via technological means, looking exactly the same as a female character in the ep. No objections were raised to adding that ... I'd think these are related cases. Make sense? |
| Biff |
| Thursday December 30 11:44:00 2004 Re: The man behind the woman (or pig) |
| Biff wrote:
> The character is > female ... that's all that should matter. I agree. |
| Brian R |
| Thursday December 30 11:55:10 2004 Re: The man behind the woman (or pig) |
| Biff wrote:
> One of my toon entries is for an animated scene with a > human female (Dr. Girlfriend from THE VENTURE BROTHERS) I don't see that one. |
| Brian R |
| Thursday December 30 13:54:10 2004 Re: The man behind the woman (or pig) |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > One of my toon entries is for an animated scene with > a > > human female (Dr. Girlfriend from THE VENTURE > BROTHERS) > > I don't see that one. > Hmmm ... I may not have entered it. It was just a quick but attractive handgag by Brock Samson. I might be flashing on relating it at the c3c group. |
| Biff |
| Thursday December 30 14:14:07 2004 Re: [9462] Las Vegas |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> AsbestosFilter wrote: > > 39 minutes in. Episode is (1.9). > > Time is without commercials. > I'd like to get this straightened out. So the scene time here is without ads (I don't know diddley about TiVo ... is that how you could view it sans breaks?) ... and your later post re another VEGAS ep refers to times *with* ads? |
| Biff |
| Thursday December 30 15:56:28 2004 Re: The man behind the woman (or pig) |
| Biff wrote:
> Off Jay's remarks at Discussion: > I can't see any reason to > jerk either of these Obvious you don't recall the "cluestick" threat then. Will run through the notes for you, then it'll make sense. |
| Jay L |
| Thursday December 30 16:00:50 2004 Re: Biff Post |
| "If you'll recall, a little while back I asked about that scene from TOTALLY SPIES dealing with a man masquerading as a woman via technological means, looking exactly the same as a female character in the ep. No objections were raised to adding that ... I'd think these are related cases." No Suspect entries are treated different than ones from contributors. |
| Jay L |
| Thursday December 30 16:01:33 2004 Re: [9462] Las Vegas |
| Biff wrote:
> I'd like to get this straightened out. > > So the scene time here is without ads (I don't know > diddley about TiVo ... is that how you could view it sans > breaks?) ... and your later post re another VEGAS ep > refers to times *with* ads? All my entries / corrections are based on episode time without ads. Different stations broadcast different ads which last longer / shorter, so timing with ads will be different depending on where you live. Listing the scene as not including ads is the only way to have the correct time in all areas. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Thursday December 30 16:31:12 2004 Coronation Street |
| FINALLY got a chance to analyze this scene - it'll be up
in the first update of the new year. Title: Coronation Street Medium: Soap Opera Actress: Shobna Gulati Character of the shopgirl Sunita (Gulati) is held captive in her flat by her husband's psychotic former girlfriend. Hands behind (bonds are actually never shown), she is tape gagged with black tape wound several times around the head. Very gruesomely realistic for a soap opera. |
| Major John |
| silent_night_022003@yahoo.com |
| Thursday December 30 16:49:10 2004 Re: [9462] Las Vegas |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> Listing the scene as not including ads is the only way to > have the correct time in all areas. > Not *correct* time, since, as you say, airtimes will differ ... you mean a consistent measure. That's why I always use "around" and "about" to qualify scene times. The bottom line here is to always include the proviso that your times are "clean" when posting here ... even though you've stated it above, time passes and memories fade. And it's unusual to provide "clean" times for episodes, as opposed to movies. And to the other eds: Be sure to label "clean" times as such when editing entries ... else there may be some unhappy campers who just miss a scene due to the lack of clarity. Sweat the small stuff. |
| Biff |
| Thursday December 30 16:57:52 2004 Re: The man behind the woman (or pig) |
| Jay L wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > > Off Jay's remarks at Discussion: > > I can't see any reason to > > jerk either of these > > Obvious you don't recall the "cluestick" threat > then. > I vaguely recall something about the scene ... no clue about "cluestick". > Will run through the notes for you, then it'll make > sense. > Oh, don't do that ... please. If you can outline the argument against, fine ... but I don't want to get too deep into this. I think Miss Piggy's suitability for the DB can be argued either way ... but the fact that her voicer has testacles shouldn't be part of the debate. All I'm saying. |
| Biff |
| Thursday December 30 17:01:09 2004 Re: Biff Post |
| Jay L wrote:
> No > Suspect entries are treated different than ones from > contributors. > Was the Miss Piggy entry suspect in some way? I was assuming there was a scene involving her, and that she was voiced by a man ... and was addressing the issues arising from that. If someone was dicking around, that's another matter. |
| Biff |
| Thursday December 30 18:00:53 2004 Re: Argument? |
| Biff wrote:
> outline the > argument against Rather you not use "argument" If someone like yourself were to enter this, Brian ok'd, there would be no problem. Entry was suspect for a number of reasons. Posted along with others which prompted Brian to warn of "Cluesticking", or "Banning Annoying Entry Posters" Only reason it mentioned |
| Jay L |
| Thursday December 30 20:42:27 2004 Re: Argument? |
| Jay L wrote:
> Rather you not use "argument" > "Argument" in the sense of one's position on the issue ... not in the sense of being contentious. > Entry was suspect for a number of reasons. > Posted along with others which prompted Brian to warn of > "Cluesticking", or "Banning Annoying Entry > Posters" > > Only reason it mentioned > So someone *was* foolfarting around? Then this becomes a hypothetical discussion ... but my thoughts remain the same. |
| Biff |
|
|