For your edification…..


This is Miller, telling Trumpists one thing on far right media, that Trump staged 20000 national guard troops that were never requested…and the complete opposite under oath, that he never requested any national guard or police even as everyone who spoke to him begged him to deploy the guard….that’s another reason you aren’t hearing the fantasy side of the argument….Trump’s people aren’t prepared to be caught lying to congress, and they know pretty well that congress has documentation and records that might prove they lied, so they’re being more honest than they are normally. This is why you have everything wrong and backwards, the people you listen to are prepared to outright lie to you every single day. They told you more than once directly and publicly that they have no obligation to tell the truth to the American people if they aren’t under oath.

I’m telling you the facts, the cold, hard, uncomfortable facts. The “other side” is just making it up as they go.

BTW, convicted and disgraced Steve Bannon just called for 4000 shock troops to deconstruct the government brick by brick, and for killing Biden’s entire administration in the crib, a clear unambiguous call for violent murderous insurrection against the US….again. Not sure how that’s not a direct death threat against the president on air….expect Bannon to go away longer than the 2 years he’s facing.

So, explain why you spent dozens of not hundreds of hours watching “hearings”which were one sided, no counter argument, and no evidence, purely partisan, purely political smears surrounding Clinton’s emails and Benghazi ?….and where’s the outrage over the secret service doing what she was ACCUSED of but it was proven repeatedly she never did, intentionally erasing thousands of government owned emails concerning evidence surrounding an attack against Americans that the president intentionally orchestrated?

*crickets*

Such a silly, infantile, intentionally blind, hypocritical, totally transparent person you are.

Close. I retired by choice, and I have a non work related injury totally unrelated to being able to retire at 30, but not a debilitating injury. I’ve been a professional driver, janitor, welder/fabricator, and editor. Good choices, good timing, good luck, and being an insanely cheap bastard affords me a very comfortable lifestyle including international vacations and (ridiculously) 5 cars with my wife in California for around $35k a year with no handouts.

Why watch? Only because people with morals and ethics want to know the facts not just biased spin…clearly not on your radar.
It’s not one sided, it’s just insurrectionist free. It only has 2 Republicans because Trump Republicans made the conscious choice to “boycott “ it. Cry me a river.
There’s no counter argument because that’s not how investigations work. Investigations are held to find evidence, not debate it. If there was any honest contradictory evidence to be had, even just sworn testimony, they have been clear that would love to listen under oath on the record, but there isn’t, no one on Trump’s side actually wants to testify at all, no matter what they say on OAN or Blaze. They just ignore subpoenas and pretend they have a legal shield…which is why Bannon and others might well go to prison for years.
You get a defense at trial, which is coming. They could try to present evidence, but they have nothing but lies whimpers and whines to offer.

It’s Trumpists who want the truth hidden, uninvestigated, forgotten, and ignored. They want to hear lies or silence because the truth is they turned on America and democracy because one election didn’t go their way.

I do know better, I know that’s not what this thorough investigation Republicans fought against and boycotted is about, it’s about holding those responsible for a deadly but failed coup responsible. Those opposed to holding traitorous terrorists who attacked America responsible should move to Iran, there’s no place for them in America.

From what I remember you have a work related injury or such preventing you from working.

Why watch the hearings. They are 1 sided, no counter argument --- That is not allowed. That alone indicates a BS hearing.


They are not after truth only what they wan to hear.

And you should know better.

It was a mock American SAT exam (although I'm a Canadian, and I took the test in a Canadian boarding school right at a border town on Quebec/Maine named Stanstead College). My beef wasn't really with the teacher originally, I just thought the SAT was weird to have such a math question, so I justed wanted to point out there are 2 right answers, and 1 interesting philosophical argument to be had depending of how you look at d)... about how the question/answers were flawed. But with her answer, I couldn't but sneer and thought she was just clueless (instead of both of us had a laugh at the Q... while sipping tea? Stanstead College had a very British tradition).

As she was not the dunce who drafted that stupid question, I was not going to fight her for an inconsequential demerit (on my part or SAT?), nor find it worthwhile to pursuit the higher-ups for a correction.

It's the chicken or the egg argument, but Bob's clearly thinking the chicken comes before the egg.

Haha, I KNEW you're gonna say that. I replied it that way because it reminds me on an argument I had with a math teacher way back when which I want to tell.

It's was a math question but the answer is in multiple choice. The (simplified) question was like: What's 10-11? (I remember the exact answer is -1) but the choices were:

a) 21
b) < 10 c) < 0 d) none of the above

I chose b) because you can't lose against c) & d) right? WRONG! According to the math teacher, c) is the right answer because "c) is closer to -1"... I was in no mood to even argue with her on the conundrum of including d) in the choices by her logic, so I just sneered and slowly moonwalked away...

Just pointing out to @bobknight33, this guy found it incredibly easy to get fake ID, even a social security number…so how exactly would voter ID laws stop fraudulent voting?

Seems like the silly argument you guys love for firearm laws actually applies here…these laws won’t stop a single criminal (voter) from committing their (voting) crimes, they only punish law abiding citizens by putting hurdles in the way of their constitutional (voting) rights.

Side note: what a piece of shit, professional thief who plead guilty when facing over 125 years and in the end did less than 15 years and is again profiting from his crimes, now through books and podcasts. He should never be allowed to have over $100 net worth, with every penny he earns going to restitution.

First, It’s 1.6% - 5% (and rising fast), not .5% bob.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/

Also, 100% - .5% = 99.5%, bob. Or are you pretending only 1% balks at this idea? Considering your math skills, it’s impossible to know.

If so, why should the 99% capitulate to the 1% of intolerant assholes that insist everyone must eat pizza?

If ther are 100 people going out to eat together daily and 5 are deathly allergic to cheese, are you going to insist you prefer pizza so they should be excluded from the population because you don’t feel like a burger right now so everyone MUST eat pizza, even though the restaurant serves both?

No one is trying to make you eat the burger, they only want you to admit burgers are on the menu and that everyone has the right to choose their own meal, you don’t get to choose for them, nor do you get to deny there’s more than one choice nor enforce that insane denial.

Trans people self determining their gender in no way forces you to do the same thing. Such a dumb argument, Bob. It’s the old Con. argument…“You having a choice infringes on my rights to force my choices on you.”.

CGI = Computer Generated Image….this includes computer altered and purely computer generated images, and includes still and moving images. Perhaps it’s not an industry term anymore, it’s still an English term/phrase I used properly according to every reference I can find.

I’ve offered multiple citations backing that up.

Can you offer any backing up your contention that there’s really no such thing as cgi? Since CG only counts for 3d computer generated objects, what do YOU call computer altered images like aged actors and lighting effects (Blade Runner) on photos/film etc? Can you offer a citation to back you up? The dictionary calls that CGI.

It may be silly to call it that, but not as silly as this argument.
Remember, the CGI tag was there to indicate this was not some attempt to fool people into believing it was real, as you originally accused. So was FX. They both served their purpose, although they had to be pointed out.
Remember, you also wanted to quibble over whether this was “art” as if your liking it or it taking a substantial amount of work to create was the measure.
Now you want to quibble over a lay term that was ONLY intended as an obvious clue that this was altered.

Why?

I’ve explained multiple times why I posted it. If you still don’t know why, you have a comprehension problem, because I was quite clear. I thought it was pretty.

I think you just wanted to gripe.

BTW, bro didn’t take the job at Lucas, and regretted it immediately. He was running a few egghead stores at the time and thought his future was in computer sales. He still works with computers, has been building them since the 70’s (Apple 2) and runs his own server farm and is his own ISP. He stopped making computer art a while ago.

Tell me again how it was a sham election or that it was stolen. I'm not convinced, I want to hear your arguments again.

Clearly not. I gave you the professional definition directly from master class. You disagree with them too.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cgi
Any “computer generated image”.

You do disagree with the established definition, and you have every right to be wrong. I have every right to contradict you.

Because your argument is not professional, logical, technically correct, or rational, I’m not picking up on that.

You have no idea what my CGI experience might be. My brother was offered a job at Lucas Ranch (before ILM, before Pixar). I’ve been exposed to computer generated images and the terminology surrounding them since the 80s.

I’m also not trying to use the definition you and your close office mates might have decided is correct among yourselves, I’m using the definition you can find in any dictionary or classroom. You aren’t giving any definition nor any citations to back it up.

Edit: PS- again, what sales pitch?!

Not everyone is in the industry. CGI is used as a layman’s term, although the professional definition still fits.

Um…”they” who? what sales pitch? WTF are you talking about? I used it as a tag. WHAT!?! Are you on crack, sir?

If it’s an image of reality altered digitally, it’s not purely cg, it’s cgi…

SFX is the overall category, not a sub genre of CGI.

Yes, their three examples of well known blockbuster CGI films were pure CG images…they were not an all inclusive list, they weren’t even varied examples of all different types of CGI, they were three of the best known examples of pure CGI in main stream cinema.

OMG, that WAS your argument. LMFAHS!!! Feel shame. So incredibly stupid. That means absolutely nothing beyond those were the three movies they chose as well known examples. It in no way argues that the rest of the definition they gave is in any way incorrect. Derp!

Like saying the article on dogs had a pictures of a poodle, so all dogs must have curly hair. Just silly.

Ha.

Explain please. I read the entire article/page. Their definition was exactly what I quoted, so it does actually support exactly what I said.

“ Computer-generated imagery, or CGI for short, is a term that describes digitally-created images in film and television. CGI is a subcategory of visual effects (VFX), imagery filmmakers create or manipulate that does not exist in the physical environment being captured on film or video. CGI is instrumental in the making of movies and television shows and serves as the primary method for creating 3D-computer graphics for video games.”

Imagery Filmmakers create OR MANIPULATE that does not exist in the physical environment…exactly what this video is.

Did you actually read it? Because it does say what I’m saying.

You mean because their three examples of CGI films were all pure cgi animation the specific definition they gave doesn’t apply? Lol. It wasn’t an all inclusive list, it was 3 cgi blockbusters.

I hope that’s not your argument. If it is, you should feel ashamed.

Lol.

Tell that to the makers of “a scanner darkly”.

This wasn’t a color corrected crop of a still photo, it was a complete change of a short film.

Technically any digital photo is cgi, but that’s a red herring…this was digitally altered video, a much higher bar.

If the term is so meaningless, why argue against it?

You exaggerate to the point of hyperbole, which indicates you know you’re wrong. This argument isn’t about any still image ever digitized, it’s about a video digitally altered so much that it no longer resembles the original. Just because it’s a simple process doesn’t change that it’s an image generated by a computer.