Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-10-03 Thread Jim Leonard
"C.E. Forman" wrote: > > Can it be abbreviated to "XD" instead of "ED"? We don't want to offend > people named Ed by associating their name with a negative rating, plus "X" > is 20 times cooler than "E". > > (This is a joke; I'm not serious like I was with the protest against "P". > B-) Scaril

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-29 Thread C.E. Forman
serious like I was with the protest against "P". B-) - Original Message - From: Jim Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:32 PM Subject: Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6) > On Fri, Sep 29,

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-29 Thread Jim Leonard
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Lee K. Seitz wrote: > Jim Leonard boldly stated: > > > >If noone has any objections to Undesirable Defects, I'll make the change. > >Naysayers, you have a couple of days to suggest something better. :-) > > I prefer C.E.'s Excess Defects, but I'm gettin

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-29 Thread Lee K. Seitz
Jim Leonard boldly stated: > >If noone has any objections to Undesirable Defects, I'll make the change. >Naysayers, you have a couple of days to suggest something better. :-) I prefer C.E.'s Excess Defects, but I'm getting tired of quibbling over it (as I'm sure you guys are). -- Lee K. Seitz

RE: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-29 Thread Hugh Falk
Please send out the latest version when ready. -Original Message- From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6) Hugh Falk wrote

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-29 Thread Jim Leonard
Hugh Falk wrote: > > Undesirable Defects works for me, but again, I don't find it any more > palatable (to a consumer) than poor. I also think Undesirable is fine on > its own (without "Defects). I'd like to keep the "defects" since otherwise it's an opinion that the entire item is completely u

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-29 Thread Jim Leonard
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote: > > Jim Leonard boldly stated: > > > >Undesireable Defects? Anyone? > > I dunno. It's not bad, but it begs the question: What's a desirable > defect? 8) > > BTW, I realized a problem with my Inferior suggestions. It might be > confused with Item Missing. So then I tho

RE: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-28 Thread Hugh Falk
2000 9:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6) "C.E. Forman" wrote: > > Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current > definition for "FP" even states this. Unusable De

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-28 Thread C.E. Forman
>Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable to me... how does that wording >sit with you? This works for me. Lee, if it's redundant... would "Excess Defects" sound better? (That one's fun to say three times real fast! B-) >I severely hope you don't have anything in this condition ;-) I use

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-28 Thread Lee K. Seitz
Jim Leonard boldly stated: > >Undesireable Defects? Anyone? I dunno. It's not bad, but it begs the question: What's a desirable defect? 8) BTW, I realized a problem with my Inferior suggestions. It might be confused with Item Missing. So then I thought why not change it to just Missing, but

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-28 Thread Jim Leonard
"C.E. Forman" wrote: > > Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current > definition for "FP" even states this. Unusable Defects implies both an opinion *and* seems just as harsh as Poor. Hm... I'll give this some more thought. Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-27 Thread C.E. Forman
- Original Message - > Another question: Am I correct that MS can apply to things other than > the box. For example, I have a copy of Star Saga: One that's been > opened, but there are two sets of manuals inside that are still > shrinkwrapped. So I could list the box as VG and the manu

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-27 Thread C.E. Forman
>Unusable to Collectors isn't accurate in my opinion, because even a Poor >package can still be usuable to collectors ("Now I have that reference card >I've been looking for!", etc.) Unusable to Collectors also implies a bit of an >opinion, something I was trying to get away from in suggesting th

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-27 Thread Jim Leonard
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote: > > Another question: Am I correct that MS can apply to things other than > the box. For example, I have a copy of Star Saga: One that's been > opened, but there are two sets of manuals inside that are still > shrinkwrapped. So I could list the box as VG and the manuals a

Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)

2000-09-27 Thread Lee K. Seitz
Jim Leonard boldly stated: > >2. Think of another word for the final grade, like, um, Mediocre? :-) How about Bad (or maybe Inferior)? >3. Keep Fair as the final grade and standardize on 2-letter abbreviations: MS, >NM, FI, VG, GO, FA This would work for me as well. Another question: Am I c