chyron8472

Possessed said:

I might be. I listen to all my music at home on vinyl. But it’s because I legitimately like it and have since I was a little kid before I even knew it was cool. And on my system with hide cabinet speakers they legitimately sound superior and I’ve verified this through a/b testing of the same songs. Whether it’s because vinyl is actually better or if vinyl releases are just mastered better is irrelevant because the vinyls I have sounds better than the cds I have.

However, vinyl becomes worn and scratched over time. One wonders why you don’t then transfer them to FLAC for a digital copy and keep your vinyls pristine.

FLAC isn’t hipster. Picky, yes, but not hipster.

Also, I did once listen to an NPR segment about vinyl, and how encoding on vinyl is inherently superior because digital reproduction of an analog audio wavelength by its very nature removes information (while vinyl is already analog). However, I would think FLAC better at reproducing it than redbook audio. Plus, without a digital transfer, how else could you get comparable sound from a mobile device or from your car as you do from your entertainment center?

I just finished binging The Clone Wars TV series, and found your edits. (I got the 1080p’s from info and put them on my Plex but haven’t watched them yet.)

First, what is the difference between the 1080p m4vs versions and the bluray versions available on info? Why is there no bluray for Episode 4?

Second, are you making any more of these? Would you consider making an Ahsoka season 5 or a Fives season 6 movie?

CatBus said:

You are posting this question in a Star Wars forum, ergo no on the thread title. If what you’re really asking is if you spend too much time wondering what other people might think about you, the answer is yes. Is it more than most other people do, though? Doubtful.

Thanks for that.

DominicCobb said:

Isn’t this Star Wars forum specifically kinda hipstery at least a little bit? “I only watch the original Star Wars movies edited to their original theatrical releases using vintage film print sources by a former English teacher in the Czech Republic.”

lol 😄

dahmage said:

Well you created this thread right? I think that’s your answer right there:-)

So, no?
I would think a hipster (stereotypically) wouldn’t concern themself with whether they’re being a hipster. And I don’t hate on popular things; I just don’t generally bother much with them until the hype has died down.

…Except anything Star Wars or Zelda related. I don’t understand why any interest in SW:Despecialized is not displayed by those I mention it to. And I intend to see any upcoming live action Star Wars film on opening weekend if at all possible.

Is it hipster of me to not want to do things when doing so is perceived by myself as typical?

I have a new phone, and was deciding on what ringtone to use. I decided on the Super Mario Bros. theme because my wife thought I should… but I didn’t really want to at first because that felt like the obvious, typically popular gamer thing to pick. I like it, but I had an aversion to picking the popular choice. Looking back, I often make choices to not do things that the crowd would do or what I perceive they would perceive someone interested in my interests would do. I often do get around to the popular thing, but after it wouldn’t be considered a bandwagon decision or if someone else bought X for me as a gift or invited me to Y.

Am I a hipster?

Oh my God. The last umpteen pages are filled with requests… I just came back in this thread after a long while since checking it, and had to wade through pages and pages of link requests.

These are downloadable from MySpleen. Please do not ask in this thread for an invite. There is a specific thread for spleen invites.

Alderaan said:

Warbler said:
Um, you do realize that even if she had won, the Republicans would still have control over Congress, right? I’d call that a check on her power.

She’s a centrist neocon. She would have been waging war or paying militants to wage war for her across untold numbers of countries the world over. She would have continued corrupt economic and monetary policies that exacerbate wealth inequality and enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor. She would have further entrenched the surveillance-police state.

The Republicans–which except for a few issues she’s hardly indistinguishable from–would have loved her. And the hypocritical center-left media would have lavished fete after fete upon her. The praise for her villainy would have been never-ending.

1. Source??

2. Because Bill was also so well loved. Republicans love the Clintons… Wait, no they don’t. -.-

I thought there were rules against conspiracy theories and ridiculous doomsaying.

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I do think both sides suck but I am allowed to have some optimism

Hell, you guys can’t even stand up for Bernie Sanders

I like Bernie. I’ve said so more than once. But I did think his ideas (like free higher education) were pie-in-the-sky while Hillary’s were more realistic.

Don’t you think they’re good goals to work towards, though?

Well, it’s debatable. I certainly can see Hillary’s position that the US is not Sweden. I would like to think it’s a wonderful goal, but I’m not convinced it is attainable. Hence, “pie-in-the-sky.”

Jetrell Fo said:

I want to see America and the world prosper but it won’t happen until the world is on the same page. Can you make that happen in 100 days? Trump can’t and he knows it. If people are laying that expectation clearly at his feet as a challenge then they better be able to do it too, otherwise they become part of the bigger problem the world has against fixing things for everyone.

My feeling on the 100-days-issue isn’t so much that people expected him to do more, but that he seems to be annoyed by being held to his own expectation. Whether or not getting anything of significant value done in 100 days is a reasonable expectation, to me isn’t so much at issue, but rather his overreaction when people point it out. He’s very egotistical, basically, and if things don’t go as planned then it’s someone else’s fault. The Consitution is to blame, for instance.

I really couldn’t care less about the expectation of getting much done in 100 days.

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Change isn’t always good.

Change is what we make of it not what is given to us.

“Au contraire! It’s the human future which intrigues us, and should concern you most. You see, of all species, yours cannot abide stagnation. Change is at the heart of what you are. But change into what? That’s the question.”

“The whole thing goes: ‘The future’s not set. There’s no fate but what we make for ourselves.’”

NOTE: I had movie quotes on the brain with what you said. As a Christian, I don’t believe that last one at all. I just don’t think we should shirk responsibility for things like taking care of the planet, for example, with the excuse that God will already do it for us so why bother. Not that that has anything to do with what you said. I just had Terminator (and then Q) quotes in my head when I read that.

chyron8472 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

chyron8472 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

As for Trump, he is as qualified as any political chump need be to run for President, it was the Democratic Party and the Status Quo that got him elected. Americans have long been tired of the “status quo” in all corners of the United States. Americans want the chance to live instead of just survive paycheck to paycheck.

And that is why I say I can see why people voted for him or hated Hillary. The problem, Jetrell, is that Trump is “not the [president] they’re looking for.” He’s not the status quo, clearly, but he will not save them from these problems. Trump only ever cared about himself, his ego, and his own financial gain. Trump is not going to fix this country. He doesn’t even care enough about it not to go golfing in Florida every weekend.

This is your opinion, and I respect that, but those American’s wanted change and they knew he could give it to them regardless of whether or not he got everything done in the first 100 days.

It’s not about whether he’s done it yet that’s the issue. The issue is whether the change he makes is good for the country or even good for his voters’ well-being, and I think that it is not, because I don’t believe he understands, cares, nor cares to understand. He says he cares, but I believe it to be posturing, pure and simple.

Also, hopeful belief that the change he makes will directly be good for the country, that is optimism. Discounting any evidence that disputes that belief, and defaming or name-calling those who agree with it, is not.

And again, Jetrell, who exactly were referring to when you said “Russia lovers and Satan-driven p^&$y grabbing baby killers”?

Jetrell Fo said:

chyron8472 said:

Jetrell Fo said:

As for Trump, he is as qualified as any political chump need be to run for President, it was the Democratic Party and the Status Quo that got him elected. Americans have long been tired of the “status quo” in all corners of the United States. Americans want the chance to live instead of just survive paycheck to paycheck.

And that is why I say I can see why people voted for him or hated Hillary. The problem, Jetrell, is that Trump is “not the [president] they’re looking for.” He’s not the status quo, clearly, but he will not save them from these problems. Trump only ever cared about himself, his ego, and his own financial gain. Trump is not going to fix this country. He doesn’t even care enough about it not to go golfing in Florida every weekend.

This is your opinion, and I respect that, but those American’s wanted change and they knew he could give it to them regardless of whether or not he got everything done in the first 100 days.

It’s not about whether he’s done it yet that’s the issue. The issue is whether the change he makes is good for the country or even good for his voters’ well-being, and I think that it is not, because I don’t believe he understands, cares, nor cares to understand. He says he cares, but I believe it to be posturing, pure and simple.

Jetrell Fo said:

As is yours because you seem to think you can direct a fan-edit that is liked and understood by anyone who sees it even though you don’t have credential to direct a movie.

What? When did Frink ever berate someone for not liking an edit? Also, as Adywan has said, many MANY edits are made to a film in post-production before it is released, and sometimes multiple official edits are simultaneously commercially sold. Therefore, fan edits–or post-release edits–are no less valid than their sources. It is up to the viewer to decide which edit they prefer.

Heck, I have both the theatrical and Donner Cut of Superman II (both of which are commercially sold), but I prefer the Hybrid Cut edit that combines them both. If people like or don’t like Frink’s edits, what’s that to him?

SilverWook said:

Fan editing is not the same as directing a film.

also this.

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not qualified to direct a movie but I sure as hell know that George Lucas has no fucking clue how to direct actors. Your argument is ridiculous.

“Faster. More intense.”

Jetrell Fo said:

As for Trump, he is as qualified as any political chump need be to run for President, it was the Democratic Party and the Status Quo that got him elected. Americans have long been tired of the “status quo” in all corners of the United States. Americans want the chance to live instead of just survive paycheck to paycheck.

And that is why I say I can see why people voted for him or hated Hillary. The problem, Jetrell, is that Trump is “not the [president] they’re looking for.” He’s not the status quo, clearly, but he will not save them from these problems. Trump only ever cared about himself, his ego, and his own financial gain. Trump is not going to fix this country. He doesn’t even care enough about it not to go golfing in Florida every weekend.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

conservative people need to stop correlating a “woman’s right to choose” as though it is pro-abortion.

But it is pro-abortion-being-legal.

Again, from a political perspective, if someone says “that should be between a woman, her God, and her doctor; not the State”, that statement should not be taken as suggesting abortion is always the best and preferred choice. ie. Pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion.

And yet, the Democratic Party needs to get away from this argument. When Obama said “that’s above my pay grade” people lambasted him for not taking a side. I liked that answer a lot, but people wouldn’t accept it.

Jetrell Fo said:

I do think both sides suck but I am allowed to have some optimism

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. What you are doing is apologetics, not optimism.

What I would prefer is for some of you to lay out how you could do what you say the President can not and how you can do it better. None of you do. You just bitch, moan, slap others that don’t believe as you do

I do not. I simply think you’re blinded to your own bias. Optimism itself does not inherently invalidate nor shun criticism.

… it’s a joke really. Trump has always been the way he is … it’s not like he just turned bombastic because he ran against Hillary.

I know that. I never liked Trump. I can see why people voted for him, or didn’t like Hillary, but I think those that did made an enormous, uninformed, emotionally-charged mistake.

Hell, you guys can’t even stand up for Bernie Sanders

I like Bernie. I’ve said so more than once. But I did think his ideas (like free higher education) were pie-in-the-sky while Hillary’s were more realistic.

the man who could have beat Trump but got cheated out of the chance by your precious Democratic party.

Yes, he was cheated. Especially by Debbie Schultz, whom Hillary hired after she was ousted from the DNC. And that is one reason why Hillary lost and was always doomed to lose–she has no concept of the ethically questionable nature of her actions.

I am no-one’s judge and jury but my own. I have past experience in the Government work force and what I see as normal you all see as hypocrisy and Satan-driven p^&$y grabbing baby killers.

What? By “baby killers” are you referring to Vietnam veterans? I really have no idea what you’re going on about here. For the record, I think that a) the Democrats need to get away from being the “pro-abortion” party; and b) conservative people need to stop correlating a “woman’s right to choose” as though it is simply and murderously pro-abortion. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. If someone says “that should be between a woman, her God, and her doctor; not the State”, that statement should not be taken as suggesting abortion is always the best and preferred choice.

And before you try to read anything into what I just said: I don’t approve of abortion when the alternative is not life-threatening; I agree that abortion after any organ formation has begun should be banned; but I don’t know who should be held criminally liable nor to what extent; I don’t think every situation is identical; and I don’t have enough information personally to make a complete declaration of support on where I should stand, since the issue is enormously complicated.

You want me to see your point? Get off your horse and talk to me on level ground.

About what? Would you agree with me if I said I liked Obama? If I said I was actually optimistic when Obama got elected? But I admit I am not dead-center on the line between ideologies nor do I hate both parties equally.

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m a hypocrite, I’m a liar, I’m a piece of shit because I think both sides suck, got it. Thanks.

But you do not think both sides suck. You accuse protestation of Trump’s comparison to 9/11 ratings as taking it out of context. You defend Spicer’s Hitler-didn’t-gas-people gaffe by saying he (belatedly) apologized. You link to articles that use Infowars as a source. And you presently complain about Hillary even though she’s both a has-been and a non-issue.

You do not think both sides suck. You clearly prefer one side over the other. If you thought both sides sucked, you would be equally critical of Trump (or as open to criticism of him) as you are critical of his “liberal” naysayers, but you are not.

Jetrell Fo said:

I don’t like Trump. I am not a Trump supporter. What I am willing to do is at least give him a chance to try and back up what he said he’d do. I would have given Hillary Clinton the same chance had she won. […] So why bash only one, because some find it pleasurable and beneficial or because they just can’t admit that their own side sucks just as bad and has as many crappy people in it that the other one does?

There is just far too much “confirmation bias” than fact in this thread and that certainly does not equal a debate for either side.

Jetrell, I don’t think you realize the extent of your own hypocrisy, nor the amount to which you are actually lying to yourself about your supposed lack of support for Trump. Any criticism levelled at him, you dismiss as unfounded, unfairly biased, or out of context. And any apology his staff give for any gaffe, you defend as genuinely heartfelt.

You are not merely “giving him a chance.”

Jetrell Fo said:

https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/trump-visitor-logs-foia-lawsuit-frinformsum-4132016/

This is funny. Clinton used Burn Bags for hers which is illegal and she’s still out running around singing? Common sense and priority are apparently out the window for these folks.

Dude, hush. Clinton is no longer relevant. She lost. She’s not running again. The End. Attacking her now makes no difference.

Meanwhile, Trump is still a pompous, blundering, bumbling idiot. You say if Hillary had won you’d give her a chance, but you can’t shut up about her when she doesn’t matter anymore. Shut up already about Hillary–she’s not even in any public office at all anymore.

I mean, you could similarly start attacking Michael Dukakis or Al Gore, or I could attack Bob Dole or Mitt Romney–for all the difference it would make.

Jetrell Fo said:

^^They have answered to it, we’ve kinda-sorta joked about it even,

I missed that there were further pages. It was the last post on that page, and it was the page I linked to.

so I’m not sure how it affects you.

Stop being a jerk, Jetrell.

I think people wouldn’t “rake you over the coals” if you weren’t an avid apologist for Trump. If all you were doing was “giving him a chance”, you wouldn’t complain about “liberals”, use Fox News as a supposed legitimate news source, and complain about peoples’ unhappiness with Trump without acknowledging why they might be.

thejediknighthusezni said:

After seeing the Satanist/atheist version of The Ministry/Crucifixion ON RESSURECTION SUNDAY, I hope the Vatican keeps O’Reilly until they all go off to Hell.

What the heck are you rambling on about??

I’m not sure there is such a thing as the “Satanist/Atheist version of the Crucifixion”. I mean, what?!? …Unless you’re talking about the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Yes, that film is all kinds of straight up wrong.But then, if you object to it, why would you watch it? And on Easter Sunday?

Even so, what does Easter have anything to do with Bill O’Reilly and why should “the Vatican keep [him]”?!?

Well, Bill O’Reilly has been fired. It’s about damn time, too.

SilverWook said:

Farewell, Bill O’Reilly! And don’t let the door hit your wrinkled sexual harassing ass on the way out! 😉

Unfortunately, he’s not going to go away. Probably just find another media outlet for his idiocy. Maybe he’ll get hired by Rush’s radio network.

Alderaan said:

There would be no Islamic State [if not for Obama].

You can’t possibly be that naive. Islamic extremism has existed for well over a thousand years.
ISIS is just the latest iteration of it.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Similarly there was a common refrain that Obama created ISIS, which was equally impossible given that it happened before Obama. Does that absolve him of any blame for ISIS-related failures? Not at all, just the creation of it.

If I’m not mistaken, this reference was about the ISIL state created inside Syria. Obama waited til Damascus was obliterated before doing anything. American tax payers forked out billions of dollars to weaponize resistance fighters, those resistance fighters turned against us and took all those toys with them to Syria. That is why the claim that Obama created ISIS was used by Trump.

No. The reason why Trump claimed that Obama created ISIS is because Trump just makes up lots of random accusations, be they valid or not. You are retconning Trump’s intent by assigning reasoning that Trump was likely never even aware of at the time he said it.

Trump questioned the validity (and existence) of Obama’s birth certificate for ages. Trump had no interest in whether the claim was actually valid.