Quote:
Berak:

Studios
List the Studios in the following priority.

    * Theatrical Release Studio(s)
    * Production Company(s)
    * DVD Distribution studio(s) if there is room available.

Do not abbreviate Studio names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal; The Criterion Collection rather than Criterion or Criterion Collection; Walt Disney Pictures not just Disney or Disney DVD. Exception: If the studio name is too long to fit, use standard abbreviation rules.

There is further information about correct names for studios, and the opportunity to ask questions if unsure, in the Contributions forum.

Then see the Studios thread. Which is VERY clear.

Skip

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Berak:

Studios
List the Studios in the following priority.

    * Theatrical Release Studio(s)
    * Production Company(s)
    * DVD Distribution studio(s) if there is room available.

Do not abbreviate Studio names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal; The Criterion Collection rather than Criterion or Criterion Collection; Walt Disney Pictures not just Disney or Disney DVD. Exception: If the studio name is too long to fit, use standard abbreviation rules.

There is further information about correct names for studios, and the opportunity to ask questions if unsure, in the Contributions forum.

Then see the Studios thread. Which is VERY clear.

Skip

Except that this doesn't say anything at all. One: the rules don't even point to that thread. Two: the original poster of that thread has confirmed (here) that it's listed there as such only because the field wasn't long enough to contain the correct form back then, adding that he's not updating the thread at the moment awaiting further clarification from Ken over a much broader studio names dispute. So what's your point? The rules don't prefer "20th" or "Twentieth". All I'm doing, is entering "Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment" when I see the words "Distributed by Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment" on the cover. I'm amazed that you're trying that make that look like rule-breaking.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I have ALWAYS followed the rules

No, you have not. I'm willing to provide examples, if I must.

Quote:
and I have just a tad more expertise at them than you do.

Unfortunately, you don't. I've been a DVD Profiler user just as long as you have, I've contributed a whole lot more than you have, and I've "won" the vast majority of our disputes - in some of which Ken personally had to come in and set you straight. I don't see where this self-explained "expertise" of yours comes from. You talk about it an awful lot, but you don't actually show much of it.

Quote:
You don't have ANY knowledge of their background AT ALL, you weren't involved and NEVER have been.

This helps your argument how? So you were involved - if you're wrong, you're still wrong, and if I'm right, I'm still right. It just doesn't matter. Additionally, I have sometimes felt that the fact that you WERE involved with the creation of the rules has made you blind of seeing them as they are now (after having been edited/changed/expanded by Ken multiple times, and after we've seen major changes like common names/credited as). You're often so blind by your own intent from back then, that you don't seem to be able to see what the rules actually say today. In that regard, having had nothing to do with it helps me enormously: I don't have the burden of alledged intent, but I just see the rules as they are now.

Quote:
so stop pretending that you know that which you do NOT, or that you have the powers to divine them, whiuch you dpon't either. You do, however, frequently go rogue as you have on this

issue and do what you damn well please, Rules be damned.

Quote:
I certainly don't do as I "damn well please" - I always try to follow the rules to the letter. I may well have made mistakes once in a while - unlike you I won't claim I'm flawless when I'm not - but not intentionally. This hurling about of wild unfounded accusations - is that really the best you can do to further this debate?