(23:36:40) SteveMokris: and it was a film, not a video, mind you.
(23:37:37) BradMellen: i was using the word 'video' in the most generic sense
(23:37:43) BradMellen: as in the 'video' part of "audio/video"
(23:38:03) SteveMokris: that's more properly "audio/visual"
(23:38:28) BradMellen: not if you're looking at the inputs on a tv or other such piece of equipment
(23:38:35) BradMellen: you have an "audio" input and a "video" input
(23:38:44) SteveMokris: yeah.  because it's video.
(23:39:00) SteveMokris: you don't however have a 'film' input.
(23:39:13) BradMellen: so effectively, it was a video of a film
(23:39:53) SteveMokris: yes.  that is correct.  but since the source was film and it was treated as film, it is most properly a film (or, properly /and/ pedantically, video of film)
(23:40:08) SteveMokris: this is, of course, almost complete rubbish.
(23:40:28) BradMellen: yes, but arguing over rubbish is still much more satisfying than stereotypical smalltalk

      - 2004.11.01

Whereto from here?

Not Quite Entirely Antiquated: Some of the Usual Suspects:
(brought to you in Alphabetical Order by Surname)
Ancient History: