twister111 said:

Dude you're entering lawyer-like territory. Context is inherent to communication in general. It's usually only questioned when people are confused or lawyers are trying to get some loophole in a contract. People aren't drawing up contracts here needing to specify the meaning of every word.

I already addressed context, and this paragraph of yours doesn't logically follow from anything I said, much less refute anything I said. So once again, the claims I've replied to have no context of the type you're referring to, i.e., context which would change the meaning from an absolute statement to one of comparison. For example, in my first post about this I said:

"I loved the original "TR47" when I first discovered it in '05. However, I played it side by side with the GOUT the other day on my PC and it was horrible in comparison. Not only is the TR47 less detailed/clear, but the brightness and borders of the letterboxing constantly and rapidly flicker in it as well."

That whole paragraph established the context of a comparison, and even includes the words "in comparison" for good measure. Therefore the TR47 is horrible in a certain context, i.e., in comparison to the GOUT, and not just plain horrible. If it were just plain horrible it never would have become as popular as it did.

George Lucas could've kept the originals in great condition and released them to current High Definition home video standards. He didn't simply because he didn't want to. It's not for lack of resources or money he just didn't want to. He wanted to alter films, two of which weren't directed by him, and release his preferred versions in the highest quality. Leaving the theatrical versions in some non-anamorphic laserdisc master state.

Excellent reasons for disappointment. A disappointing level of quality isn't automatically a "horrendous", "terrible", or "unwatchable" level of quality.

The other situations you're talking about are entirely different. The context matters.

See above.