Warbler

ray_afraid said:

Warbler said:

“Part of this is that the image has been made bright to account for the substantial light-loss caused by darkened 3D glasses, and further it would always occur when you’re restoring a nearly three-decade old film” Sorry. I think so. I don’t think restoration requires the changing of light and color, unless it is to get it back to what it was when the movie was originally released. Somehow, I don’t think T2 has been around long enough for it to lose its original light and color.

It points out in the very part you quoted that the light was adjusted to make the picture look normal through the darkened 3D glasses. All 3D movies do this or it would look like you were watching the film through sunglasses.

Then they need to do two versions: a 3D version with the light and color adjusted for the glasses and a 2D version with the light and color as originally done.

And I dunno what info you have on the subject, but plenty of time has passed for the color to have faded, darkened, ect.

not that much, and by the time T2 was made they had gotten better at preserving movies.

As for removing Robert’s balls from view, I don’t care.
As for replacing the stunt mans visible face with Arnold’s, I like it.

Fine for you, but some of use want to see movies exactly as they were originally made.

As for this version replacing the original, don’t we have T2 in high enough quality for this to pretty much be a non-issue?

If you are going to re-release an altered version of the movie in higher quality, you need to do the same with the original. Technology improves. we’ve gone from vhs to laserdisc to dvd to blu ray, and no to 4k. The original version shouldn’t be left in the dust.

May I remind you what forum we are on?

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

I see your point, but sometimes you have to put the good of the nation ahead of your own career and party. I think every Republican who endorsed/supported Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Admittedly, I agree, and were I an elected Republican politician, I hope I would have the moral courage to oppose our loony president.

I think you would.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I agree that the DNC should get rid of Super Delegates. Then again, if the Republicans had them, could they have stopped Trump with them?

Perhaps, but that is not the point. I hate him, but he was democratically nominated. I don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy simply because the GOP elected a nutjob once. How often would this seeming “safeguard” be a tool of abuse in the future?

As has been pointed out to me by conservatives in this forum: America is not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Finally, if we really don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy, then we have to get rid of the electoral college.

I am not saying Republicans are morally superior, as I, myself, have abandoned the GOP. I’m just saying that you can’t lay it all on that one issue.

Well you did say

Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall

Which made me think you were talking about the individual politicians and not the parties themselves.

I am saying that both parties (meaning the elected individuals and not the constituents) are corrupt and amoral swine.

I agree with you there.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

I see your point, but sometimes you have to put the good of the nation ahead of your own career and party. I think every Republican who endorsed/supported Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I agree that the DNC should get rid of Super Delegates. Then again, if the Republicans had them, could they have stopped Trump with them?

I am not saying Republicans are morally superior, as I, myself, have abandoned the GOP. I’m just saying that you can’t lay it all on that one issue.

Well you did say

Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall

Which made me think you were talking about the individual politicians and not the parties themselves.

Thankyou.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

*sigh*

Warbler said:

My Mom visited my Dad today and he seemed fine. At around 9:00 PM, we got a call from the Rehab place that they found my father unresponsive. The used CPR and they shocked him. He got a faint heart beat. They sent him to the ER. He went into cardiac arrest again and they either shocked him and/or used CPR. I am not sure right now. Then called us. We sped over to the ER. They installed a breathing tube. He had on faint life signs when we got there. The decision was made not to try to resuscitate him again and they removed the breathing tube. He died very quickly afterwards with Mom, me, and my brother in the room with him. He is gone. I am in shock and surprised I am not balling my eyes out right now. Don’t know what else to say. Please pray for my mother and my family.

Its been a year since I wrote this post. Hard to believe. Mom and I went out to the cemetery and planted flowers. I think it is very difficult for my mom. She misses him a lot. So do I. I think I’ve said it before but I say it again, I so miss the everyday ordinary conversations I would have with him. I miss you Dad, I love you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dWOsP_wly0

I suppose that is true.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

If it is really worth it to you, you do the search.

For all you know, it is worth it to me, but I can’t do the search because my keyboard is missing the “g” key and the oogle search engine shut down two years ago.

I think that is rather unlikely. If it were the case, you could just tell me and politely ask me to do the search.

If that happened to you I think you’d want another forum member to find out via google.

I think it especially unlikely given that you have know typed the letter g above.

What if oogle was purposefully shut down by Robert Patrick to stop people for doing searches about his balls? Would you object to having oogle shut down, if that is what Robert Patrick wanted? And yes, of course this is a hypothetical. I am just saying it is a possibility.

1. Robert Patrick can not shut google down.

2. google wouldn’t be the issue, it would be all the sites google is bring up the host pics his private parts.

And before you sigh, I am just saying that the above is what it is like to read what of your what-if/hypothetical/possibilities every single time.

Oh come on, my what-ifs/hypotheticals/possibilities are nowhere near as bad as what you did above.

*sigh*

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

But what if James just didn’t want any nudity in his films?

possible, he’d have to do a lot more cgi-ing than he has already done.

What? It is the truth. If he doesn’t want any nudity in his film, he has to cover up via cgi more scenes.

*sigh*

yhwx said:

I think Ted Cruz is going to retweet a picture of Robert Patrick’s testicles, so we’re all covered.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

I think Ted Cruz is going to retweet a picture of Robert Patrick’s testicles, so we’re all covered.

Lol.

yhwx said:

Warbler seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Robert Patrick’s testicles.

*sigh*

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

If it is really worth it to you, you do the search.

For all you know, it is worth it to me, but I can’t do the search because my keyboard is missing the “g” key and the oogle search engine shut down two years ago.

I think that is rather unlikely. If it were the case, you could just tell me and politely ask me to do the search.

If that happened to you I think you’d want another forum member to find out via google.

I now think it especially unlikely given that you have know typed the letter g above.

What if oogle was purposefully shut down by Robert Patrick to stop people for doing searches about his balls? Would you object to having oogle shut down, if that is what Robert Patrick wanted? And yes, of course this is a hypothetical. I am just saying it is a possibility.

1. Robert Patrick can not shut google down.

2. google wouldn’t be the issue, it would be all the sites google is bringing up that host the pics of his private parts.

And before you sigh, I am just saying that the above is what it is like to read what of your what-if/hypothetical/possibilities every single time.

Oh come on, my what-ifs/hypotheticals/possibilities are nowhere near as bad as what you did above.

Possessed said:

But what if James just didn’t want any nudity in his films?

possible, he’d have to do a lot more cgi-ing than he has already done.

Possessed said:

But what if James just didn’t want any nudity in his films?

possible, but he’d have to do a lot more cgi-ing than he has already done.

Possessed said:

It’s not. I don’t care either way. You’re the one who said “for all we know” as if it were impossible to find out.

I didn’t say it was impossible to find, that is not was “for all we know” means.

If it is really worth it to you, you do the search.

SilverWook said:

Staffing issue my ass. They’ll be saying they were doing “research” next.

If it was a hack, it’s a disturbing thought. What happens if somebody used Trumpy’s twitter account to declare war on North Korea? That might be a little hard to walk back.

Yes, what if the the hacker twitted “fire the nukes!”? That is quite disturbing.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

The account has his name on it. It is his account.

Sure. And it’s his face on the billboard, and so on. When your name and face are regularly handed off to others to create a message to associate with it, sometimes the best you can do is pull the offending material after-the-fact and presumably identify/deal with the person who created it. If you consider Twitter passwords to be sacrosanct things only to be given to people with the highest vetted clearance, you would be (perhaps properly) horrified by how it works every day in much of the world, where the intern gets handed it on day 1.

If it is the case that any new intern gets handed the password on day 1, I would suggest changing the name of the twitter account. Maybe change it to “Ted Cruz campaign” or “The Office of Ted Cruz” or “Ted Cruz INC” or “The Staff of Ted Cruz”. Something that indicate it is a twitter account belonging to his group(what it is called), and not his own private twitter account.

TV’s Frink said:

Which means nothing.

It means it is his account!

TV’s Frink said:

I didn’t even see the typo. As usual I just don’t know what you are getting at. You threw out a random hypothetical with no basis and have no interest in backing it up.

Why is this so difficult to understand? All I am saying is that for all we know, Robert Patrick did give his permission nor want his private parts to be seen in that scene. They have been shown by mistake. If that happened to me I think I’d want the director to cover it up via cgi. What if it were a female’s private parts that were accidentally shown in the scene? Would object to having them covered via cgi, if that is what the actress wanted? And yes, of course it is a hypothetical. I am just saying it is a possibility.

Also I was just trying to get you to search for balls because I’m immature, but that’s besides the point (now).

*sigh*

The account has his name on it. It is his account.

*sigh* typo corrected.