Ah ha, that explains it nicely, thanks.

Skip

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Version 3.5's results can be submitted without further verification, however note that the disc automatically added to a new profile added by Disc ID does not correctly set the DL flag.  Discs added or set from the DVD->Edit window do set this flag.

This oversight is corrected in the upcoming 3.6, but until then please scan them from the DVD->Edit window.

Thank you very much. 

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Version 3.5's results can be submitted without further verification, however note that the disc automatically added to a new profile added by Disc ID does not correctly set the DL flag.  Discs added or set from the DVD->Edit window do set this flag.

This oversight is corrected in the upcoming 3.6, but until then please scan them from the DVD->Edit window.

Thank you Ken!

BTW Rick, James does not deserve an apology if you have read and comprehended every aspect of this thread. Just because Ken finally made a clarifying comment does not mean James is owed anything. Prio to Ken's comment my stand remains t5he same and prior to Ken's comment James made n unsupported Contribution as explained repeatedly. Once he provided documentation he got a Yes vote. The situation was resolved BEFORE Ken made his useful comment. Perhaps you should apologize for your crass behavior.

James learned, I hope, That once I throw a No vote I watch very closely to see if it gets addressed so I can change my vote to Yes. He finally did so and I changed my vote. That is all that was necessary.

Skip

Quoting I-Fling-Poo:

Quote:
From Ken:

"Version 3.5's results can be submitted without further verification." (emphasis mine)

Looks like James and others were correct.

Poo

But that was unknown at the time, you DO understand that...YES?

What was the purpose, besides to further inflame?

I am sure you also noted that Ken included a caveat which explained what myself and OTHERS had encountered.  

I love the way people read what they want to read, and quote what they want to quote out of context what they want to quote, with one single purpose. And then you wonder why you get met with HOSTILITY. This includes you, Achim. Get a CLUE.

Skip

.

So...why did you bother. Pomposity does not become you.

Skip

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Quoting I-Fling-Poo:

Quote:
From Ken:

"Version 3.5's results can be submitted without further verification." (emphasis mine)

Looks like James and others were correct.

Poo

But that was unknown at the time, you DO understand that...YES?

In my opinion, it wasn't unknown. That's why I started this thread: because I thought it was obvious.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
BTW Rick, James does not deserve an apology if you have read and comprehended every aspect of this thread. Just because Ken finally made a clarifying comment does not mean James is owed anything. Prio to Ken's comment my stand remains t5he same and prior to Ken's comment James made n unsupported Contribution as explained repeatedly. Once he provided documentation he got a Yes vote. The situation was resolved BEFORE Ken made his useful comment. Perhaps you should apologize for your crass behavior.

James learned, I hope, That once I throw a No vote I watch very closely to see if it gets addressed so I can change my vote to Yes. He finally did so and I changed my vote. That is all that was necessary.

Skip

I took no offense at the 'no' votes. I started this thread because I didn't understand the perspective of the 'no' voters and wanted clarification.

Your 'no' vote comment (which you admitted was to "blast" me) and your numerous attacks in this thread against me as a person...I find those offensive. Enduring your personal attacks is a fact of life in this forum, so whatever.