Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Now you are just being melodramatic.

Now?

Quote:
Mark:

Like I said I don't use the program your way, yet I contribute or used to, so how was I to know this, if it's not in the Rules or hasn't been brought to the Forums. Don't forget, Mark, I am not alone, I just happen to be the most vocal, but there are numerous other people who have weighed in on this issue in the same way.

Quote:
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.

Mark:

Like I said I don't use the program your way, yet I contribute or used to, so how was I to know this, if it's not in the Rules or hasn't been brought to the Forums. Don't forget, Mark, I am not alone, I just happen to be the most vocal, but there are numerous other people who have weighed in on this issue in the same way.

Quote:
I do understand it, and it's wrong.

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.

I don't fault you for not knowing it initially. I do fault you for continuing to argue from the standpoint of not knowing for -- what -- 40 pages? As Mark said, it's been mentioned countless times during that time.

To quote yourself from one of your recent posts in another thread:

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
[Skip]:

In case you have a problem with reading comprehension, [Ken and many of us] have said this reopeatedly. Once again you jump in with little or no knowledge apparent and do so only to cause a fight. So, before you engage your keyboard, engage your brain FIRST., and drop your combative nature. This is nothing new, it's been this way for years and [Ken and many of us] have said so.

Since you just said this to someone else, surely I can say it back to you and I'm confident you won't find it insulting. 

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
To quote yourself from one of your recent posts in another thread:

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
[Skip]:

In case you have a problem with reading comprehension, [Ken and many of us] have said this reopeatedly. Once again you jump in with little or no knowledge apparent and do so only to cause a fight. So, before you engage your keyboard, engage your brain FIRST., and drop your combative nature. This is nothing new, it's been this way for years and [Ken and many of us] have said so.

Since you just said this to someone else, surely I can say it back to you and I'm confident you won't find it insulting. 

Quote:
I repeat this has all been discussed and answers suggested. Now go inform yourself before discussing further, you might find enlightenment to be useful. <sheesh>

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.

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.

[b]How many times do we have to go over this?  No, it is not in the rules, it is in the program.  In the program, NR<G<PG<PG-13<R<NC-17<Adult.  It has always been like that.
[/b]
I am sorry that you were not aware of this but your lack of knowledge does not change the fact that NR is, and always has been, the lowest Profiler rating.

You can argue anything you want, but the rule did not imply anything.  It simply told us what to do when the release contained an unrated version of the film...enter it as NR.