<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:09 PM, Michael T. Dean <<a href="mailto:mtdean@thirdcontact.com">mtdean@thirdcontact.com</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">If you delete with "allow re-record", you're not saying, "do re-record"--just saying, "allow re-record [if I ever have a rule that matches the episode again]". So, if you want it to re-record, you'll need to ensure you create a new rule that will match it.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>Wow, that's pretty thin ice. To me it shouldn't offer the allow rerecord bit since to most people (namely every myth user there is except maybe two or three) it means there will be an eventual re-record with no further user action required. That's what it means with other rule types.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know how much effort it would be to deep freeze / revive rules for this special case. There already is an inactive state for rules, a "satisfied" state state that makes it stay around but hidden until its matched recording goes away would suffice. </div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand I'm not sure how big the audience would be for such an effort.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway that's an interesting revelation, thank you.</div><div><br></div><div>- George</div></body></html>