I think Tim was confused and didn¹t realize that you always have your links as part of your digital signature and that the links don¹t have anything to do with your post and are not related to ³making film.²
On 10/7/11 1:04 PM, "Matt Helme" <[email protected]> wrote: > I meant you could always make film.Not sure what would be involved in doing > that. > Matt > > http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234 > > http://www.youtube.com/user/matthelme007 > > From: Tim Halloran <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 10:03 AM > Subject: RE: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak > > Interesting little videos, but what do they have to do with "making film?" > > When I saw your message I thought I was going to be linked to something about > actually hand producing film stocks. Does anyone know of anybody who is doing > this, or has thought of doing it? > > I guess you meant "you could always make a film. No? > > Tim > > > Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:17:20 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak > > I guess you could always make film? > Matt > > http://www.youtube.com/user/oscarthepug1234 > > http://www.youtube.com/user/matthelme007 > > From: Pip Chodorov <[email protected]> > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak > > These are my sentiments exactly, and I also use Eudora. > But let's see what happens - maybe film will surprise us and survive. > Let's have this discussion in five years or so when instead of 6-8 > companies making film perhaps there are only 2-3. > -Pip > > > > > At 10:18 -0700 6/10/11, Aaron F. Ross wrote: >> >It's OK, I always wear a flame-retardant vest while on the Internet. ;) >> > >> >BTW, as I said before, I'm not a hater. I just think critically about >> >technology. Cases in point: I don't have a smartphone. I still have >> >my collection of vinyl records. And I'm still using the same email >> >program, Eudora, that I used back in the 1990s during the first round >> >of "Flameworks" posts that forced me off the list. And why do I cling >> >to these old ways? Not because they're old, not because I resist >> >change, but because I have evaluated my needs and decided that these >> >older technologies are better for me. New is not necessarily good, >> >and old is not necessarily good, either. But in the case of celluloid >> >film, very soon it will be a moot point, because you won't be able to >> >buy it for love or money. -- >> > >> >Aaron >> > > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > > > _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks www.decodawson.com
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
