Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

I believe the proper usage is "insurpassable".

Your belief is incorrect.  If you look up both words you get the following results:

'unsurpassable': not to be exceeded; "unsurpassable skill"; "unsurpassable standards of workmanship"
'insurpassable': no definitions were found

You may be thinking of 'insurmountable'.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
For example, common sense tells me that 40 trained Llamas, directing a film, was a joke and shouldn't have been entered into profiler.

Maybe it should be entered as [Credited as] ?

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

I don't disagree.

I am playing devil's advocate.

On the one hand people want to say "common sense" isn't common therefore, we cannot apply it in some cases, but then they turn around and say we can apply it in this case.

Smacks a bit of hypocrisy to me.

It is only hypocritical when it is not put into proper context.  You can't use common sense when the rules are very specific.  For example, common sense tells me that 40 trained Llamas, directing a film, was a joke and shouldn't have been entered into profiler.  Well, common sense doesn't trump the rule that says to copy the credits exactly.  If, however, the rules do not cove a specific situation, as they do not here, then some common sense can be applied and the voters...and screeners...will make the final decision.

As I said, it seems fairly simple.

You keep saying the Rules don;t cover it.  I disagree.  They are very specific about where to get the title from.  They make no allowance for exceptions.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
You keep saying the Rules don;t cover it.  I disagree.  They are very specific about where to get the title from.  They make no allowance for exceptions.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I couldn't parse it to mean that if I tried. 

Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
When there is a titile on the front cover you use it. If there is no titile on the front cover then you don't throw your hands up and say I can't do anything here. That's when you have to use common sense and go to the spine and/or back cover.

Exactly how I see it as well.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
You keep saying the Rules don;t cover it.  I disagree.  They are very specific about where to get the title from.  They make no allowance for exceptions.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I couldn't parse it to mean that if I tried. 

Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
When there is a titile on the front cover you use it. If there is no titile on the front cover then you don't throw your hands up and say I can't do anything here. That's when you have to use common sense and go to the spine and/or back cover.

Exactly how I see it as well.

So, if the Rules do not tell us specifically NOT to do something (they are silent on the issue) then it is to be interpreted that you can do it?

I've worked with contracts for services for a long time, and believe me that is not the way they work.

If something is not explicitly stated as being "covered" then under contract law, it is not covered.

You seem to think it works the other way.

In this case, the Rules provide for one and only one place to get the title.

A simple modification, which would take a minuet or two, could fix this.

In the meantime, "common sense" tells us how to deal with it.

But to claim that because the "Rules are silent on this" that we can assume that we can take the title from the back or the spine and still believe it's within the Rules is illogical.

Here comestha tem Common Sense again, Hal

All right lets test it. Apply a little a Common Sense to Musical works and explain and how Musical Composition without ANY words is a Song Writer. By ANY definition that is an invalid statement, including Common Sense but....

Skip

Birds "sing" all the time....without words.  It is called a "birdsong"!

The concept that a "song" must have words is just non-sensical.

See....common sense!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:


Last I checked, this was not contract law.  T

The way you parse the Rules, you would certainly think it was contract law!