timdiggerm

Not to mention how much confusion the several versions of ANH:R has caused

hansolo8004 said:

Whatever happened to this?  Anything?  I've been looking everywhere and it's not uploaded yet.

I haven't watched the Clone Wars because of the childish aspect to it, so really looking forward to this!

 8 days before you, he said

Not yet. Should have a full trailer for Episode II by the end of the month.

TV's Frink said:

What exactly are we tweeting?

 So far, not much.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tobar said:

Anyway, Lucasfilm proper found Aurebesh handy and has since used it in all of their video productions to date, including The Force Awakens. Which is fine to a point, but I've always felt they should be more diverse like the OT.

Yes, exactly. In a civilization made up of thousands of races/cultures, you'd expect to find more than one writing system in use anyway.

 I thought at least Vader's chestplate was legit Hebrew letters

.Mac. said:

• Phasma

 This is how we know it's authentic: terrible names

imperialscum said:

timdiggerm said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

I love how Christians are bigots who believe that perhaps it is against God's will that homosexuality is an acceptable practice in his eyes, though they still defend the rights of homosexuals.

I can't help myself but point out this technical issue.

Christians who believe that homosexuality is against God's will don't believe in omnipotence of God, which is basically equal to not believing in God at all.

If it was against God's will then it wouldn't exists, would it?

 Yeah, "against God's will" might not be the best way to say it. I think it's more accurate to explain this way:

• God does allow people to sin, even if it's wrong. That's probably a concept you're familiar with? Like, you know we believe it?
• People come in all ways. Some of my grandparents had problems with alcohol. Some people have problems with anger. Other with pride, etc.
• Not all desires are good.
• Not all sexual desires are good.
• Some people have problems with not-good sexual desires (see above).
• Some of those bad sexual desires are homosexual in nature.
• Modern concepts of identity have made those desires into an immutable part of a person's identity, which they believe they can not and should not forsake.
• Many Christians disagree with that last part.

Well if an event can happen then there are two possible scenarios.

1. God allows it to happen, which basically means it is God's will as God must have designed the possibility for such event to occur.

2. God has no control over it, which would negate omnipotence.

Welcome to the issue of Theodicy, which has much debated for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

I think my favorite podcast is In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg, which is really a BBC Radio 4 show. An old British man sits down with 3 PhDs and talks about a topic. What kind of topic? Oh, pretty much any topic.

Either that or Hello Internet, in which two of the best online video makers (IMHO) talk about whatever.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

I love how Christians are bigots who believe that perhaps it is against God's will that homosexuality is an acceptable practice in his eyes, though they still defend the rights of homosexuals.

I can't help myself but point out this technical issue.

Christians who believe that homosexuality is against God's will don't believe in omnipotence of God, which is basically equal to not believing in God at all.

If it was against God's will then it wouldn't exists, would it?

 Yeah, "against God's will" might not be the best way to say it. I think it's more accurate to explain this way:

• God does allow people to sin, even if it's wrong. That's probably a concept you're familiar with? Like, you know we believe it?
• People come in all ways. Some of my grandparents had problems with alcohol. Some people have problems with anger. Other with pride, etc.
• Not all desires are good.
• Not all sexual desires are good.
• Some people have problems with not-good sexual desires (see above).
• Some of those bad sexual desires are homosexual in nature.
• Modern concepts of identity have made those desires into an immutable part of a person's identity, which they believe they can not and should not forsake.
• Many Christians disagree with that last part.

darth_ender said:

Turning my cheek is one thing, but should I not defend His? And do you believe my conduct was too out of line? Perhaps you may be right.

 I don't know if it was out of line or not. I really don't.

darth_ender said:

I guess as I've thought about it, though I was defending Warbler, I was also defending Jesus Christ.  You see, to me he is not just some guy.  He is not even some remote supernatural being.  I see him as a very dear friend, someone for whom I have a great deal of love.  You may criticize me, my beliefs, my church, its founder, its leaders, its doctrine, its scripture.  You may criticize similar things for broader Christianity.  But when you actually belittle the Man I love most in this universe, I really cannot take it.  It's not just being thin-skinned.  Most of you wouldn't take me insulting a family member.  This is much like that.  You don't have to believe in him, but please do not disrespect him.

 This is a tricky one in my mind. Shouldn't we turn the other cheek? Shouldn't our conduct be our defense, not our words? It's not like he who was in the beginning, from whom all things were created, without whom nothing was made that is made...needs us to defend him.

C. S. Lewis said:

Consider for a few moments the enormous aesthetic claim of its chief contemporary rival — what we may loosely call the Scientific Outlook, the picture of Mr. [H. G.] Wells and the rest. Supposing this to be a myth, is it not one of the finest myths which human imagination has yet produced? The play is preceded by the most austere of all preludes: the infinite void, and matter restlessly moving to bring forth it knows not what. Then, by the millionth millionth chance — what tragic irony — the conditions at one point of space and time bubble up into that tiny fermentation which is the beginning of life. Everything seems to be against the infant hero of our drama— just as everything seems against the youngest son or ill-used stepdaughter at the opening of a fairy-tale. But life somehow wins through. With infinite suffering, against all but insuperable obstacles, it spreads, it breeds, it complicates itself, from the amoeba up to the plant, up to the reptile, up to the mammal. We glance briefly at the age of monsters. Dragons prowl the earth, devour one another, and die. Then comes the theme of the younger son and the ugly duckling once more. As the weak, tiny spark of life began amidst the huge hostilities of the inanimate, so now again, amidst the beasts that are far larger and stronger than he, there comes forth a little naked, shivering, cowering creature, shuffling, not yet erect, promising nothing, the product of another millionth millionth chance. Yet somehow he thrives. He becomes the Cave Man with his club and his flints, muttering and growling over his enemies’ bones, dragging his screaming mate by her hair (I never could quite make out why), tearing his children to pieces in fierce jealousy till one of them is old enough to tear him, cowering before the horrible gods whom he created in his own image. But these are only growing pains. Wait till the next act. There he is becoming true man. He learns to master Nature. Science comes and dissipates the superstitions of his infancy. More and more he becomes the controller of his own fate. Passing hastily over the present (for it is a mere nothing by the time scale we are using), you follow him on into the future. See him in the last act, though not the last scene, of this great mystery. A race of demigods now rules the planet — and perhaps more than the planet — for eugenics have made certain that only demigods will be born, and psychoanalysis that none of them shall lose or smirch his divinity, and communism that all which divinity requires shall be ready to their hands. Man has ascended his throne. Henceforward he has nothing to do but to practise virtue, to grow 10 wisdom, to be happy. And now, mark the final stroke of genius. If the myth stopped at that point, it might be a little bathetic. It would lack the highest grandeur of which human imagination is capable. The last scene reverses all. We have the Twilight of the Gods. All this time, silently, unceasingly, out of all reach of human power, Nature, the old enemy, has been steadily gnawing away. The sun will cool — all suns will cool — the whole universe will run down. Life (every form of life) will be banished, without hope of return, from every inch of infinite space. All ends in nothingness, and “universal darkness covers all.” The pattern of the myth thus becomes one of the noblest we can conceive. It is the pattern of many Elizabethan tragedies, where the protagonist’s career can be represented by a slowly ascending and then rapidly falling curve, with its highest point in Act IV. You see him climbing up and up, then blazing in his bright meridian, then finally overwhelmed in ruin.

Such a world drama appeals to every part of us. The early struggles of the hero (a theme delightfully doubled, played first by life, and then by man) appeal to our generosity. His future exaltation gives scope to a reasonable optimism, for the tragic close is so very distant that you need not often think of it — we work with millions of years. And the tragic close itself just gives that irony, that grandeur, which calls forth our defiance, and without which all the rest might cloy. There is a beauty in this myth which well deserves better poetic handling than it has yet received; I hope some great genius will yet crystallise it before the incessant stream of philosophic change carries it all away. I am speaking, of course, of the beauty it has whether you believe it or not. There I can speak from experience, for I, who believe less than half of what it tells me about the past, and less than nothing of what it tells me about the future, am deeply moved when I contemplate it. The only other story — unless, indeed, it is an embodiment of the same story — which similarly moves me is the Nibelung’s Ring. Enden sah ich die Welt.

I read that this morning and thought it was relevant to this thread.

Warbler said:

Darth Id said:

hairy_hen said:

Seeing as you only post in Off-Topic, that's like saying all Norm ever did at Cheers was pop in to use the restroom and leave.

Loving this analogy, seeing that Off-Topic pretty much is the restroom of this site.  An often amusing and at times extremely baffling one, but a restroom nonetheless.

 With Warb's "Christian Thread" serving as, perhaps, the broken seat-cover dispenser?

 I think it might be wise to just add you to my ignore list.

 I think you need to examine the reasons/attitude behind needing to Ignore anyone who says things like that.

darth_ender said:

I don't think he enjoyed personally tormenting you.  ABC/xYz was mean specifically to be mean to you.  Bingowings was just generally insulting.  Honestly, I think he genuinely has hard feelings towards me, and just disagreed with you on just about everything.

 I still don't understand why anyone cares that someone disagrees with or has "hard feelings" towards them.

Well there was this: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Brashs-Star-Wars-Sound-Effects-Archive-A-collection-of-the-best-Star-Wars-sounds-for-use-in-Fan-Editing/topic/12364/

But I have no idea where to acquire it.

TV's Frink said:

justinvalorman said:

TV's Frink said:

You should remove those links, posting them violates the rules here.

 Wait, really? What rules? 

Ah never mind, I got my forums mixed up.

 So he can put them back right?

TV's Frink said:

Things aren't staying cordial...

 The least surprising thing ever

Wow. I really enjoyed these rescores!

towne32 said:

If the cartoon taught us anything, it's that they all need really neat haircuts for that purpose.

On a semi-related note: did Lucas decide to make the clonetrooper bodies CGI in episode 2 in order to make sure they really were identical in height, size, etc? Obviously, the results now look like a Sega Dreamcast era videogame, so it was by no means successful. But I'm wondering if he at least had a valid reason like this.

 It was probably mostly just to prove that he could, for cheap. A big goal of the prequels was to make the movies for less money than expected, while doing things that were only sort of good-enough-looking.

mverta said:

I did do a double take!  :) 

 Now there are two of them!

but seriously, this name is confusing

towne32 said:

Molly said:

Would that not indicate that the 2009 version is, in that one respect at least, an improvement?

 Not to mention that the 2009 releases brought back mono versions of everything that was originally mixed in mono.

 but only if you got the rare mono set, of course

ATMachine said:

What ever happened to stuff like that parallel-universe Infinities comic book series Dark Horse put out several years ago? I miss those days.

 But that was explicitly labelled as non-canon.

Tobar said:

I would like to discuss this hypothetical cosplayer.

What motivated them, why did this character inspire so much work to be put into a costume?

They love the character or at least the look conveyed by drawings of the character

Just how authentic is this costume anyway?

Define "authentic"

Are they resentful about the Legends decision?

 Absolutely

DuracellEnergizer said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Going forward there way no way they were going to have competing timelines or a multiverse.

It this turns out to be the case, I'm going to make Lucasfilm my bitch. 

 This...is a thing we knew...ages ago?

retconing at its finest

It's hard to tell, because those are different frames, but it looks to me like that mysterious black line is on the technidisc too. Yes?