Topic: A MOHAIR SWEATER (Read 820 times)

Laura · « **Reply #60 on:** September 24, 2025, 09:08:25 AM »

So I guess I will be worship leader on Sunday.

Freddie · « **Reply #61 on:** September 24, 2025, 09:12:15 AM »

Quote from: Laura on September 24, 2025, 09:08:25 AM

So I guess I will be worship leader on Sunday.

Are you OK with that?

Freddie · « **Reply #62 on:** September 24, 2025, 09:12:48 AM »

The trailer is out for the second part of WICKED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmdaUaGTPM&list=RDuUmdaUaGTPM&start_radio=1

Jane · « **Reply #63 on:** September 24, 2025, 09:17:14 AM »

Catching up from posts two days ago.

Bruce, we were very disappointed in the new Superman movie.

DR Singdaw, I liked the gritty police vs cozy mystery cartoon

Laura · « **Reply #64 on:** September 24, 2025, 09:34:45 AM »

Quote from: Freddie on September 24, 2025, 09:12:15 AM

Quote from: Laura on September 24, 2025, 09:08:25 AM
So I guess I will be worship leader on Sunday.

Are you OK with that?

Sure. I guess I'll get left behind. I'll be in good company.

Ginny · « **Reply #65 on:** September 24, 2025, 10:41:41 AM »

Wednesday afternoon greetings! Today is the first day since last Friday that I have NOT made a batch of caramel corn.

Ginny · « **Reply #66 on:** September 24, 2025, 10:43:18 AM »

But I have 32 treat bags, each containing 2 cups of caramel corn, to be sold at Saturday’s fundraiser.

Ginny · « **Reply #67 on:** September 24, 2025, 10:43:56 AM »

My high school wardrobe included a mint green mohair sweater.

ChasSmith · « **Reply #68 on:** September 24, 2025, 10:50:20 AM »

I don't know what any of these sweaters felt like, either in having them on or just holding/feeling the thing. What I remember from that armchair or couch or whatever it was, was a rough, bristly feeling.

ChasSmith · « **Reply #69 on:** September 24, 2025, 10:53:01 AM »

I'm thinking the sweaters and such probably did NOT feel like that chair, which was of course not long-hair or anything like that.

ChasSmith · « **Reply #70 on:** September 24, 2025, 11:10:39 AM »

I've got an ASK BK!

What's a succinct way to explain to someone why standard movie theaters had no way of projecting a proper 1.37 or 1.33 picture in the years after the theaters had been retrofitted to show widescreen formats? I'm out of my depths here, but from reading posts on Home Theater Forum over the years, did it have to do with aperture plates and lens combinations? Am I getting warm?

Someone was asking about this, and wondered why they couldn't just "zoom in" the whole frame and employ masking? I'd love a short explanation that an intelligent layperson will understand, but I sure don't want to be spouting BS.

bk · « **Reply #71 on:** September 24, 2025, 11:11:00 AM »

I'm up, I'm up - six and a half hours of sleep.

bk · « **Reply #72 on:** September 24, 2025, 11:11:22 AM »

I'll be on my way in thirty-five minutes.

ChasSmith · « **Reply #73 on:** September 24, 2025, 11:11:28 AM »

It's good to hear about DR Elmore's great A-a-R round trip and hospital appointment.

bk · « **Reply #74 on:** September 24, 2025, 11:13:00 AM »

When they converted to the standard 1.85/scope screens, the screens were no longer tall enough to do Academy ratio. In order to do it you'd have to do what Coppola did with One from the Heart - print a 1.37 image in a 1.85 frame.