f9b9105e   
   Since most of your statements consist of calling me an idiot or   
   a moron, there's not a whole lot of content to reply to, but I'll   
   try and reply to the few that actually do contain something:   
      
   Duggy  wrote:   
   >> How many AFI-Top-100 films are hard to find?   
   > On 35mm, 75 - 95 of them.   
      
   By contrast, all of them are available on DVD, and about half   
   are available on Blu-Ray.  Oh yeah, the original trilogy is   
   available on "DVD".  Right.   
      
   Now you'll say I'm switching between 35mm and DVD.  Well, fine,   
   pick a format... the original trilogy isn't available in decent   
   quality in ANY format.   
      
   >> NOR does he allow a decent release of the original films.   
   >> BOTH are unfortunate, don't you think?   
   > No, both are good financial movies.   
      
   You'll have to clarify that one for me.  It's fortunate   
   that there isn't a decent release, because they are good   
   financial movies?  Huh?   
      
   > You seem to be making conflicting claims and throwing around   
   > loaded words to make George's motives sound sinister.   
      
   You are the ones trying to put the loaded words like "sinister"   
   and "conspiracy" in my mouth.  What loaded words did I use?   
      
   >> I never said that either. ?I was asking whether YOU considered George's   
   >> statements to be evidence that they weren't being preserved. ?I have   
   >> no way of knowing whether his statements in this regard are true   
   >> or not... but either way it's bad news.   
   >   
   > So no matter what the truth is you won't be happy.  Figures.   
      
   Nonsense.  If he is lying on both counts (he actually IS preserving   
   the film and actually WILL release them), I'll be extremely happy.   
      
   >> Since you are very particular about words, I'm curious as to your   
   >> definition of restoration and whether the SE constitutes a valid one.   
   > Wow, you truely are thick.  A restoration is a simple think and   
   > destroies what it uses.  A special edition requires much more.   
      
   You managed to stuff an amazing number of spelling errors into a   
   response that doesn't answer the question.  Obviously SW was restored.   
   The substantive question is whether that restoration still exists.   
   GL says it doesn't.  If he's lying about that, it would be good news.   
      
   > I'm curious as to why you think that the SE should never have been   
   > attempted?   
      
   Never said that either.  I'm fine with the SE.  I'm not fine with   
   it being the only version that's released in decent quality, though.   
   Are you?  Hmm, I'm guessing that your answer to that question will   
   be that I'm a moron.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)