Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote: BTW, north, I have no problem with Hal disagreeing with me, I have a problem with his snotty attitude. As I demonstrated he COULD have disagreed WITHOUT being disagreeable, but Hal is incapable of that. As he has repeatedly demonstrated.
Skip As I stated earlier, and as anyone who read my post would see, I was not disagreeing with you. I was talking to RHo. But just keep on spewing your venom, Skip. If you keep repeating it often enough, someone might actually start to believe it (besides you, that is). | | | Hal | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | In that case, Hal then I will apologize. But even so, your comment directed at Rho, was unnecessary and could have been and should have been handled better. Please, amigo, try and keep the rancor out of your posts, we will all be better for it.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Perhaps I should have called him an ass instead? | | | Hal |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Not at all, hal, his post was not deserving of your attitude, but I don't expect that you can see that. I know that Rho can be annoying from time to time, as we all can, your response minus the nasty sarcasm or whatever you want to call it would have been appropriate.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,475 |
| Posted: | | | | Would the posters please stay on topic as I have a whole bunch of CoO contributions to vote on and I want to do this correctly. Thank you. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Kathy:
I would either vote Yes or neutal to COOs, til we get documentation method sorted out. Let's face it, I think 98% of the time we all probably know the answers, on the 2% if the user has figured out some way to rationally document then yes, else Neutral...for now.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 810 |
| Posted: | | | | One thing that you can check for is the copyright notice at the end of the film. It will often list a COO as part of the wording.
pdf | | | Paul Francis San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,692 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote: Would the posters please stay on topic as I have a whole bunch of CoO contributions to vote on and I want to do this correctly. Thank you. just use common sense as to whether the coo looks correct. Most films are straight forward. | | | Paul |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote: Quoting RHo:
Quote: Yes, if the main production company is correctly documented to be Eon and Eon is correctly documented to be UK based, the CoO is UK. Funding and distribution has no relevance to the country of origin as used by DVD profiler. I just love these "statements of fact"!
Since the CoO field is not even referred to in the Rules, exactly how is it that you know "Funding and distribution has no relevance to country of origin as used by DVD profiler"?
The fact that Gerri has publicly stated that the CoO for LOTR is the U.S would tend to undermine your supposed "fact". You are correct, the CoO is not mentioned in the rules. This should be changed by Invelos. And you are also correct that Gerri has given us the definition of the CoO field as the country "where the production companies are based" (see this post). It is reported in this post that she later corrected the misunderstanding about WingNut being NZ based and not US based. Unfortunately Gerri has done this by PM and not in the forum. While I do not doubt northbloke about this PM, we can't check it ourselves. | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,475 |
| Posted: | | | | Thank you for the help. RHo I appreciate you finding those posts; I searched for something to help me clarify this and didn't see those. |
|
Registered: July 15, 2007 | Posts: 159 |
| |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dvdjon: Quote: sometimes its a real nut to crack because that there can be "a shi*load" of companies involved. If production companies from more than one country are involved substantially in the production, I would recommend to leave the field empty until a better solution is implemented. Finding out which is the "main" prod. company can be difficult or not possible in some international co-productions. A minimal implementation would simply be the addition of "International" to the country of origin list. A more satisfying solution would of course be the possibility to list all involved countries alphabetically. |
|
Registered: July 15, 2007 | Posts: 159 |
| |
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,022 |
| Posted: | | | | I'd like an 'Other', I think as suggested in the feature requests, to cover the likes of Iraq, Iran etc etc | | | |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting richierich: Quote: I'd like an 'Other', I think as suggested in the feature requests, to cover the likes of Iraq, Iran etc etc Or a list of all countries. I can't understand why Ken has "linked" the country of origin list together with the locality list (which is harder to get the required info for all countries). |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 188 |
| Posted: | | | | Since this is a new field, I personally allow myself to vote yes without requiring documentation when the field is being filled for the first time - just to get the field primed(unless I KNOW it to be incorrect). If it's being CHANGED I look at documentation. That's just how I've been handling my vote. | | | Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him warm the rest of his life. |
|