Ahem. I haven't proposed a single change in this thread, or even encountered an Alan Smithee credit in my contributions. And your clueless rambles are focused on me, why? Oh yeah, 'cause you and Rifter have it in for me. Surprise surprise! 

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Everyone else can see it, why can't you? There is NO SUCH PERSON as Alan Smithee! If the true identity can be proven, what on Earth is the reason not to put it in there? As is the trend, you and Rifter are in opposition to everyone else!

One more instance of your cluelessness is choosing the common name. If and when I choose a common name, it is based on the most commonly credited name as given in several online databases, NOT my local. Isn't it about time you quit making assumptions? DTS mono, powerdvd 4 surround... ring any bells?

As for "40 page discussions", if you didn't enjoy them you'd not get involved, so don't give me/blame me for that rubbish.

Yes, stuff in the common name field may end up being redone. But if this Smithee stuff gets corrected, clearly the eventual system will be terribly flawed, so we may as well get good work done as and when possible. I just cannot get my head around why you are being so defensive of clearly unsufficient data.

Quoting Nadja:

Quote:
Ahem. I haven't proposed a single change in this thread, or even encountered an Alan Smithee credit in my contributions. And your clueless rambles are focused on me, why? Oh yeah, 'cause you and Rifter have it in for me. Surprise surprise! 

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Everyone else can see it, why can't you? There is NO SUCH PERSON as Alan Smithee! If the true identity can be proven, what on Earth is the reason not to put it in there? As is the trend, you and Rifter are in opposition to everyone else!

One more instance of your cluelessness is choosing the common name. If and when I choose a common name, it is based on the most commonly credited name as given in several online databases, NOT my local. Isn't it about time you quit making assumptions? DTS mono, powerdvd 4 surround... ring any bells?

As for "40 page discussions", if you didn't enjoy them you'd not get involved, so don't give me/blame me for that rubbish.

Yes, stuff in the common name field may end up being redone. But if this Smithee stuff gets corrected, clearly the eventual system will be terribly flawed, so we may as well get good work done as and when possible. I just cannot get my head around why you are being so defensive of clearly unsufficient data.

Hey, you opened yer yap and made a comment, so you're fair game.  But, truth be known, I couldn't care less WHO said what.  Its the "what" I'm replying to.

You ask why not enter Smithee's REAL name?  Because that isn't the name in the credits on the damn disc!  Its that simple.  If there's any trend here, it isn't me and Skip trying to impose it.  Its the rest of you trying to make things far more complex and difficult to deal with at almost every turn.  I follow the rule KISS.  That means: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!  I will ALWAYS look for the simplest, most efficient way to do it - which is also the easiest in most cases - and nothing will ever change that.

Oh, btw, it isn't "unsufficient".  You spell that INsufficient.  Just for the record, however, the data isn't insufficient, it is correct, because that is what actually appears on the disc in the credits.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
You ask why not enter Smithee's REAL name?  Because that isn't the name in the credits on the damn disc!  Its that simple.  If there's any trend here, it isn't me and Skip trying to impose it.  Its the rest of you trying to make things far more complex and difficult to deal with at almost every turn.  I follow the rule KISS.  That means: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!  I will ALWAYS look for the simplest, most efficient way to do it - which is also the easiest in most cases - and nothing will ever change that.

You be as simple as you like, the rest of us seem to be capable of comprehending slightly more advanced techniques.

I didn't say that, sir. I said you are doing NOTHING. You sit on the sidelines and carp, that's it. You don't do squat. And BTW I definitely am NOT interested in your opinion on ANY Common Name.

He also has plans for proper implementation of Credited AS field but he hasn't rolled it out yet, Bozo.

Skip

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I'm very confused as to why there's an opposition to this.

Welcome to the DVD Profiler forums! 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I didn't say that, sir. I said you are doing NOTHING. You sit on the sidelines and carp, that's it. You don't do squat. And BTW I definitely am NOT interested in your opinion on ANY Common Name.

He also has plans for proper implementation of Credited AS field but he hasn't rolled it out yet, Bozo.

Skip

Doing squat? Here are Andy's stats.

Statistics
Member Since: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 (94 days ago)
Last Forum Visit: Saturday, June 16, 2007 10:02 AM
Forum Posts: 300    Forum posts by Lopek
Accepted Profile Contributions: 626
Accepted Image Contributions: 571
Contribution Votes Cast: 54


Looks like squat...nOT!

I never thought name calling ever contributed anything to a good debate - it makes me uncomfortable and I do not gain insight or understanding of the topic.  My hope is that the forums be open and thought provoking - not mean spirited, vindictive, or unkind.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
How anyone can argue with the perfectly clear meaning of this Rule is beyond me!

"Use the "As Credited" field where the person's name differs from the credited name."

The "person's name" is John Lynch.

The "credited name" is Alan Smithee.

"John Lynch" differs from "Alan Smithee", therefore the above Rule directs you to use the "As Credited" field.  It is not an option.

To put Alan Smithee in both fields would be a violation of the Rules!

Ooooh! Good call. I guess that settles it then? Unless there's a way to interpret that rule that I can't see.

Always.

Have to agree with Hal and Nadja (and others) here though...