Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Where was this stated, James, in the Rules, in the forums, I never saw it before, not EVER. If one doesn't filter that way then how is one to KNOW that, james. You're the hot dog around explain that Loooocy. You know Ace, mentioned movie pick, it is well known that a lot of us don't use Movie Pick.

Movie pick is where this info would be useful, but it's not where it was stated. Basically, it was listed before G in the rating list and sorted before G when sorting by rating and was allowed when you filtered for G or less. The rules said nothing about which rating was highest, so this was just an assumption on your part. Perhaps it wasn't entirely unreasonable, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Basically, the rating system hasn't changed. You've only learned more about it.

Let's say I just found out Richard Bachman is a pen name for Stephen King. I wouldn't say The Running Man was never written by Stephen King before, just that I hadn't known it was written by Stephen King.

Quoting Romzarah:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
James:

Your claim is not in the Rules and until last week Ken never mentioned it before. NOT EVER. Great maybe for you it was understood to be lowest,base upon what I don't know, a vivid imagination maybe. But to others of us it did not mean that at all and never has, and I would argue that the old Rule certainly came closer to implying that it was a higher rating than it would be the lowest, because as I have explained, through examples, it is simply not rational to make it the lowest.

For someone that has been with DVDP as long as you have, I have a hard time thinking that you would not have known this yourself. Is it that maybe you just like to argue everything?

No, Rom as I said I have a real brain and that brain understands that it is not good to dumb something down that only begets problems, the kind of problems I have offered with a hypothetical but very real issue. You want to ignore data, you want to mix hard movies with soft and just call them all soft, because there are more soft in the list than there are going to be hard.        

For the last five years I have operated under the belief that NR was a highest rating. Now how could I do that, oh gosh I don't know Ken never said anything about it, and I know what I had intended, which was that NR was highest, as I have pointed out even the Rule implies that is higher than R. Gosh i don't know how i could have come to that conclusion given the fact that it has never been discussed in the forums for even 30 seconds prior to last week start and the claim that it was an issue,where was it an issue, not here, not ever, where. Do we have some secret place where discussions are being had now and issues are brought up and decided upon without the Forums? It's never come the Rules Forum.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting Romzarah:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
James:

Your claim is not in the Rules and until last week Ken never mentioned it before. NOT EVER. Great maybe for you it was understood to be lowest,base upon what I don't know, a vivid imagination maybe. But to others of us it did not mean that at all and never has, and I would argue that the old Rule certainly came closer to implying that it was a higher rating than it would be the lowest, because as I have explained, through examples, it is simply not rational to make it the lowest.

For someone that has been with DVDP as long as you have, I have a hard time thinking that you would not have known this yourself. Is it that maybe you just like to argue everything?

No, Rom as I said I have a real brain and that brain understands that it is not good to dumb something down that only begets problems, the kind of problems I have offered with a hypothetical but very real issue. You want to ignore data, you want to mix hard movies with soft and just call them all soft, because there are more soft in the list than there are going to be hard.        

For the last five years I have operated under the belief that NR was a highest rating. Now how could I do that, oh gosh I don't know Ken never said anything about it, and I know what I had intended, which was that NR was highest, as I have pointed out even the Rule implies that is higher than R. Gosh i don't know how i could have come to that conclusion given the fact that it has never been discussed in the forums for even 30 seconds prior to last week start and the claim that it was an issue,where was it an issue, not here, not ever, where. Do we have some secret place where discussions are being had now and issues are brought up and decided upon without the Forums? It's never come the Rules Forum.

Try using your profiler from time to time... If you sorted for PC just one time you would have seen this.. I knew this even without running a sort.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
For the last five years I have operated under the belief that NR was a highest rating. Now how could I do that, oh gosh I don't know Ken never said anything about it

You ASSumed. Go to Edit Profile and select the drop-down list of ratings. Look at what's the top (lowest) and what's at the bottom (highest).

Quote:
and I know what I had intended, which was that NR was highest, as I have pointed out even the Rule implies that is higher than R.

The rules implied no such thing. More importantly, they stated no such thing.

Quote:
Do we have some secret place where discussions are being had now and issues are brought up and decided upon without the Forums?

I believe it's called the real world. You should try it some time.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Where was this stated, James, in the Rules, in the forums, I never saw it before, not EVER. If one doesn't filter that way then how is one to KNOW that, james. You're the hot dog around explain that Loooocy. You know Ace, mentioned movie pick, it is well known that a lot of us don't use Movie Pick.

Movie pick is where this info would be useful, but it's not where it was stated. Basically, it was listed before G in the rating list and sorted before G when sorting by rating and was allowed when you filtered for G or less. The rules said nothing about which rating was highest, so this was just an assumption on your part. Perhaps it wasn't entirely unreasonable, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Basically, the rating system hasn't changed. You've only learned more about it.

Let's say I just found out Richard Bachman is a pen name for Stephen King. I would say that book was never written by Stephen King before, just that I hadn't known it was written by Stephen King.

I hope that is a hypothetical, Ace, because i would ask what cave you have been living to not know that.   Just a little teasing

Actually I never knew it until recently (within the last couple years) 

Quoting Romzarah:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting Romzarah:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
James:

Your claim is not in the Rules and until last week Ken never mentioned it before. NOT EVER. Great maybe for you it was understood to be lowest,base upon what I don't know, a vivid imagination maybe. But to others of us it did not mean that at all and never has, and I would argue that the old Rule certainly came closer to implying that it was a higher rating than it would be the lowest, because as I have explained, through examples, it is simply not rational to make it the lowest.

For someone that has been with DVDP as long as you have, I have a hard time thinking that you would not have known this yourself. Is it that maybe you just like to argue everything?

No, Rom as I said I have a real brain and that brain understands that it is not good to dumb something down that only begets problems, the kind of problems I have offered with a hypothetical but very real issue. You want to ignore data, you want to mix hard movies with soft and just call them all soft, because there are more soft in the list than there are going to be hard.        

For the last five years I have operated under the belief that NR was a highest rating. Now how could I do that, oh gosh I don't know Ken never said anything about it, and I know what I had intended, which was that NR was highest, as I have pointed out even the Rule implies that is higher than R. Gosh i don't know how i could have come to that conclusion given the fact that it has never been discussed in the forums for even 30 seconds prior to last week start and the claim that it was an issue,where was it an issue, not here, not ever, where. Do we have some secret place where discussions are being had now and issues are brought up and decided upon without the Forums? It's never come the Rules Forum.

Try using your profiler from time to time... If you sorted for PC just one time you would have seen this.. I knew this even without running a sort.

Golly, Rom. what a brilliant idea, assuming that I felt I needed to do that, which I never have.We all have our methods of using the program, at least mine is based on rationality, not just because there are alot more G, PG-13, PG stuff mixed in with some R and higher, the n it should be the lowest setting. Like I said that logic is screwy. You set it to the highest saetting and then figure out how to achieve what users like you want to achieve.

I could see a very real possibility in the legal climate on the US where someone might sue Invelos on this basis, if there were a Deep Throat or similar mixed into the Not rated and there may be. It sound like a dumping hot coffee in your lap while driving kind of case and suing McDonald's. Mom: I trusted the rating system of Profiler and showed this title and now my kids are permanently scarred. Could she prevail, I don't know, I have seen people sue over stupider issues

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Skip, rather than discuss this here, take 2 minutes, open DVD Profiler, go to filters, on the General tab tell it to show you everything "Less than" "Film: G".

This has nothing to do with rules, what Ken has told us, assumptions or anything else.

You will clearly see your NR profiles.  And in my collection 12 Angry men is first with The 40-Year-Old Virgin: Unrated listed right after it.  I see Disney's American Legends right before American Pie: Unrated.

This is a clear way for you to see that we aren't making this up.  You can even do this on your own collection.  NR material today is considered less than a G rating.  That is a fact.  That is DATA if you prefer.  That's how the program works and how it's always worked.  Regardless of rules or your prior assumptions.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Now you are just being melodramatic.

Now?