Burkejon at 23:30, May 4, 2013

2013-05-04T23:30:34Z

Burkejon: Reply to Critique from Ralph Hilton

2013-05-04T23:14:54Z

New page

Ralph,

Thank you for your continuing input. The defocusing effects have a greater purpose than just "bling". I won't be changing those. When I sent out critique invites, the people I asked were told they would be put in the credits as consultants. There was no assumption on our part.

Regarding the stage 4, several of the panel members thought it was a moot point and to do the best I could as it is an extremely rare needle phenomena and more of a curiosity than anything as there are no rundowns and such for it. I am not minimizing the tech of it, just relaying the communication on the subject. We will endeavor to improve the stage four needle and other reads as input and validity per definition dictate and time permits us.

The film is a labor of love and will continue to be improved until a majority of everyone is happy. I am doing the work for free so it is what is after three and a half months of 8-10 hour days and a year development cycle. There are many enthusiastic technical terminals in the field who are more than happy to have it in it's current state and wait for improvement than having nothing at all. Most all of them helping us along the way make improvement, such as yourself. I am making improvements on a daily basis and re-rendering/uploading/reposting them nightly, so it won't take long in our estimation.

It's not easy baring your (Technical, Artistic, Video, and Musical) talents despite everything for the sake of Ron's (and 10.000's of others) decades of efforts reaching for the goals in Scientology and it's adherents for free. First asking for critiques then getting a want for absolutes from people you don't even know. All wanting a different product in a different direction. Believe me on this.

ML,

Jonathan

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The film is a labor of love and will continue to be improved until a majority of everyone is happy.  I am doing the work for free so it is what is after three and a half months of 8-10 hour days and a year development cycle. There are many enthusiastic technical terminals in the field who are more than happy to have it in it's current state and wait for improvement than having nothing at all. Most all of them helping us along the way make improvement, such as yourself.  I am making improvements on a daily basis and re-rendering/uploading/reposting them nightly, so it won't take long in our estimation.
-It's not easy baring your (Technical, Artistic, Video, and Musical) talents despite everything for the sake of Ron's (and 10.000's of others) decades of efforts reaching for the goals in Scientology and it's adherents for free.  First asking for critiques then getting a want for absolutes from people you don't even know. All wanting a different product in a different direction.  Believe me on this.
+Its not easy baring your (Technical, Artistic, Video, and Musical) talents despite everything for the sake of Ron's (and 10.000's of others) decades of efforts reaching for the goals in Scientology and it's end goals for free.  First asking for critiques then getting a want for absolutes from people you don't even know. All wanting a different product in a different direction.  Believe me on this, it's no fun but we KNEW it HAD to be done.  If not for pulling the tech terminals together and getting them to agree, for the most part, on one of the most key set of datums in Scientology.  We are trying to start stable datums on a new cycle for EVERYONE, that takes time, when its at an Organizations own expense.  The more agreement we get the better the field will get, the more people will go up the Bridge in the short and long term via (ARC/KRC). The more freed beings both in the mest and theta universes.  We are not participating in the finger pointing, blame, ded/dedex dramatizations.  Its a create line for us, and we will get great products, given time and resources.  So far, so good.
 ML,
 Jonathan

Thread:Talk:Meter Reads Drill Film/Critique from Ralph Hilton/reply (6) - Revision history

Burkejon at 23:30, May 4, 2013

Burkejon: Reply to Critique from Ralph Hilton