Kurgan

Its changed in the revision I am working on. I'm just saying that describing a sex-less conception as an "immaculate conception" is not that inaccurate.

It's completely inaccurate. The term has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, and everything to do with ORIGINAL SIN.

Immaculate Conception = someone is conceived without the stain of original sin (applies to Jesus and Mary, but since Jesus is DIVINE, there's no reason to single him out as sinless, since of course God is sinless)

Virginal Conception = someone is conceived without sex (applies to Jesus alone)

Virtually all Christians accept the virginal conception of Jesus. Only Catholics (and perhaps some Orthodox, but it is not official teaching of any of those communions) accept the Immaculate Conception, and it refers exclusively to the virgin Mary.


Fact: In Catholic (and non-Catholic Christian) understanding, MARY'S PARENTS HAD SEX. Her mother got pregnant from her husband's sperm. Mary's mom gave birth to her. The only difference (for Catholics) between Mary and all other mortal human beings who have ever been born, is that she didn't have original sin (meaning she had no tendency to sin in life, meaning she was sinless as an adult). Protestants don't accept Mary's sinlessness (though Muslims apparently accept it), but they do accept the fact that her parents conceived her in the usual, biological fashion.

Fact: Both Catholics and the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians have traditionally accepted the "virgin birth" (virginal conception) of JESUS (Mary and Joseph didn't have sex to produce Jesus, rather Mary became pregnant miraculously of the Holy Spirit). I don't know of any who assert that Mary's parents didn't have sex to produce her.

So if sex is "dirty" then how was Mary kept unstained by Original Sin even though her parents had sex? IC just means that she herself is unstained, not that her virginity made her pure (she was pure from conception, not from when she hit puberty and decided to abstain from all sexual activity).


Since non-Christian religions (like Greco-Roman pagan religions) lack a belief in original sin, "Immaculate Conception" has no meaning. Virginal Conception might, but again, that's another topic entirely (and I would still say there's a difference Christianity's virgin birth story and Zeus transforming into an animal to physically seduce a human woman and produce a half-divine child).




It belongs completely to Catholics, who have and continue to define it as the sinless condition of Mary, the mother of Christ. If non-Catholic (or even some Catholic) laymen misuse the term to refer to another concept, that doesn't make their misapplication therefore excusable. A lot of people misquote Shakespeare or confuse common words with one another. That doesn't mean those things therefore are excusable mistakes when we know better either.

and its used freely by catholics and non-catholics to describe miraculous sexless conception. Schmi is not a virgin birth, so you could call it a "divine conception" or an "immaculate conception", but people understand "immaculate conception" better.

Originally posted by: adywan

About 70% didn't. It wasn't available when i started the project and too much work had been done when it did come online.

Originally posted by: adywan


yeh, Revisited almost filled 2 terrabites of space up so it's going to take more for ESB because this time i will be working with a 1080p source

Originally posted by: Josh
ok my thing is seeding, its downloaded 100%, what now.

Originally posted by: adywan
I would like to thanks everyone for your help. i haven't resolved the issue yet but i'm hoping to soon. i really hope that i don't have to do a reinstall of windows xp though because i have too much stuff that i just can't back up (settings etc). my only other route at the moment is to buy a cheap hard drive, take out my C drive and install windows on this so i can at least get the encoding done. That will have to wait until the end of the month when we get paid though. hopefully it won't have to come to that.

To everyone that kindly PM'd me recently then i'm sorry but i haven't had a chance to reply as yet because of everything that is going on here, but i will reply as soon as possible.

Originally posted by: adywan
Well i've just this second finished the last tweak to the video and i am rendering the MPEG2 right now. I have a few more things to do for the menus and the DVD-5 PAL will be ready to go. Then it will only take a day or two to finish the NTSC DVD-5. The DVD-9 versions will be a few weeks at least away though because there is a lot more to do for those.

Originally posted by: Sevb32
I never heard anyone in nearly 25 years complain about the bald cap Shaw wears, that one is new to me, I think it looks fine.

Originally posted by: BMadden



I don't want to derail this thread any further, but I just have to call BS on this statement. How is it patronizing or rude to defend Adywan after he's said that he has done everything he originally envisioned with this edit and that he doesn't want to make any further changes?[/quote]

I don't want to derail it either, but I'll explain what I meant. It is because it asks us to assume that the vast majority of people giving feedback were making unreasonable demands or expressing themselves in a rude manner... that their contributions were negative, and somehow an affront to adywan himself. The impression was given that anyone expressing criticism (no matter how diplomatically worded) was attacking the project, bashing adywan himself and expressing ingratitude. Often such posts were filled with "I thought it was perfect/ didn't have a problem with that" types of comments which sounded like they were trying to distance themselves from the feedback (ie: I'm one of the good guys because I never made any criticisms). It was setup as if these people were pretending to be ady's friends and the rest of us were his enemies.

Maybe that sounds like taking it to an extreme, but it's true that not everyone has read and responded to every post in this thread. I think people are reacting TOO defensively on his behalf and in the process attacking a lot of other people with blanket statements about how criticism is immoral. I find that objectionable, and it sounds like they think adywan can't take care of himself or make his own decisions.

I especially hate the "you can't please everybody" types of responses, as if people were making unreasonable demands. Two shots were consistently mentioned as deserving further attention on here... the TIE sequence at the end, and the cut off forearm shot. So as far as I can see, anyone commenting on those two things had every right to, regardless of what adywan decide(s). There's no reason to bash people who made constructive feedback or to imply that anyone who did is bashing adywan himself or needs to be silenced.

[quote]
I'm sure there are little fixes here and there he could address, but he's stated time and time again that he's satisfied with the edit and officially done with it.[/quote]

Actually he didn't say that until many posts later, but some people were acting as if he'd said that first and then people had piled criticism on him unfairly. Adywan isn't George Lucas so let's not bring in that baggage here. He considered the criticisms to valid that he modified the "flipper" himself and put in the test images for the hand. He even said he'd changed it!

So people getting upset and hoping to somehow retroactively remove the criticism just comes off as strange. What do they want to happen.. for adywan to say "just kidding" and leave the flipper shot as it was on the Xvid? I don't understand the point of that. And what are you going to do anyway if people keep making suggestions? He can just ignore them once he's made up his mind. But again, not everyone can be bothered to read the entire nearly 200 post thread to see what questions aren't permitted to be asked anymore (and no offense, but is this adywan's forum... even if it's his thread?).

[quote]
The "rude" people are the ones who keep pestering him to make additional tweaks or changes.[/quote]

Can you name some of these people? I consider it far more rude to attack someone who is giving feedback, telling them that they need to stop pestering adywan. Surely adywan can tell them this himself, and if they won't listen, he can ignore them. Has he appointed these folks his spokesmen on the forum to say what can and can't be asked?

[quote]
My feeling is this: either enjoy it for what it is, the best SW fan edit ever and something that surpasses what Lucas gave us in 1997 and 2004, or move along and don't bother watching it.