"Regarding the surface of the Blu Ray it very much depends on what speed the disc was burned at in the first place, its protective layer comes more into operation the deeper its burned into the surface. The trouble is with mass production of Blu Ray that the disc is not burned at the slowest speed to get the best out of it, because of the size of the information they have to put on it. This is why the DVD is more robust on that score being that the information on it is far less, so therefore they pay more attention to the right speed it should be burned at."
In that post you clearly state that mass-produced Blu-rays are burned. You then do a u-turn and try to claim that you were talking about the master all along (which you clearly weren't). The production of a glass master is a bit more involved than popping a blank BD in a writer and hitting record anyway.
16mm doesn't look any better than VHS? This bloke seems to disagree with you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVORkpi4_
So the 5.1 isn't proper 5.1? The original mono *is on the disc*, so why would anyone bother to listen to a 5.1 pseudo remix? If the original track wasn't there you'd have a point, but the 5.1 remix is nothing but an alternative.
Can't be arsed to reply to the Lovefilm bit as I'[d just be repeating myself and you've already ignored it once.
"If you read my statement carefully"
Maybe if you took the time to compose your statements carefully these little misunderstandings wouldn't arise.