Quote:
Still mixing apples and oranges< james. your question has NOTHING to do with undocumented data or even documented data. Your question regards whether the divination of ken's intent was correct. I document the data as i do so that everyone knows exactly what is transpiring voters and users ALIKE. You were the only user who didn't like the interpretation, the other THIRTEEN user agreed with it some of them enough to comment regarding your comment. Sorry, James your interpretation does not always Rule and neither does mine, when it does, it does, when it doesn't that's fine too.

We have been through similar discussions many times and they always come down the same way. You always believe that there is only one possible interpretation and it is yours, your setting up of this poll, in view of what both the screeners and other voters thought about the same topic simply proves that point. Otherwise you would simply accept it and move on, it also demonstrates to me a distinct lack of understanding about the role Wally (Bud) Westmore in Paramount Studios history. If this upsets you, I apologize but, I am not attacking you, I am calling it like I see it. As I have said many, many times aour data is based on experience with the data, Hollywood has an ugly habit of throwing curve balls.

I am not going to discuss this further, James. the topic for me is finished and i have the answer I need going forward.

Skip <shrugs>

Quote:

In this case, I think there is no interpretation possible. We may thank the author of the sentence, which is sufficiently precise not to give place to any interpretation.

Quote:
Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
I've contributed a number of Make-up Supervisors and as a rule i include that credited role in my notes.

Every time i've encountered it the role was listed right where the Chief/Lead/Dept. Head/Head Make-up person would be, just ahead of the Make-up Artists.

This is usually about as far as i stray from the reservation when making credit decisions but it just seemed so obvious that with so many synonyms for 'Boss' in the list of make-up alternatives that this fulfilled the intent of that list.

So you support Supervising Producer, as well?

Quote:

@Surfeur:
Any rule can and sometimes has to be interpreted.

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Of course I would. But supervising producer is a functional equivalent to executive producer and not to producer.

Not that it actually matters.  The Rules make zero allowances for functional equivalents. 

Is the there, because you do not like it that the rules make zero allowance, or because I would support supervising producer as a functional equivalent if the rules would allow functional equivalents?

IMO supervising producer is between the producer and executive producer. It's something like the supervisor of the executive producers. This makes him a functional equivalent to executive producer like the  supervising art director is a functional equivalent to art director for our purposes. But I do agree that as of today the rules do not make any allowance.