 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
wrote:
>"Lead on, McDuff"
"Lay on MacDuff..." ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:53:18 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:
>
>> In any case, that's what it's supposed to do. If some time in your life,
>> someone tells you not to hire some particular lawyer because he's a real
>> shylock, you'll know what it means.
>
>Actually, considering Shylock's character, I'm not 100% sure I know what
>they're trying to imply.
Shylock in the play is not the Shylock that people think he is. This
is where culture comes in. You need to understand the reference and
the popular understanding of it as well.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:56:21 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:
>
>>> I played Shylock.
>>
>> And you don't understand what it means to call someone a Shylock?
>
>Well let's see now. You could mean that they're just plain evil. Or
>misunderstood. Or an oppressed minority. Or just Jewish. Or any number
>of other possible meanings...
Mean and/or money lender depending on the context.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2008 16:44:18 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> Besides, when I used the word "ignorant" I used it to mean "doesn't
>know things". The negative connotations are your own interpretation.
It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
boorish. Quite a bad insult.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:18:12 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Presumably this is why all schoolchildren [in the UK at least] have
>Shakespear inflicted upon them as a mandatory component of their
>education. I still can't figure out what good it's supposed to do.
>
It does no good what so ever. The reason is, IM(NS)HO that the
Cultural (large C) grandees think that it should be taught because
Shakespeare is the bard and he is important. And this is coming from
someone who has seen all of his plays at least three times.
Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself. Also the
world view in Shakespeare is too adult for children.
Which reminds me I must get on with my entry for the TC-RTC "The
Tempest" ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
First law of interaction between people: Communication will not succeed,
except by random chance.
Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
worst possible way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
> interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
> worst possible way.
Corollary: That will happen even if something cannot be interpreted
in more than one way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2008 18:57:45 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
>> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
>
> First law of interaction between people: Communication will not succeed,
>except by random chance.
>
I won't argue with that.
> Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
>interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
>worst possible way.
What do you mean? What are you implying about me? :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2008 19:01:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
>> interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
>> worst possible way.
>
> Corollary: That will happen even if something cannot be interpreted
>in more than one way.
Aye, there's the rub. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48582275@news.povray.org...
>> For example, in the Jet Li / Jackie Chan movie that just came out, the
>> story is related to a major cultural story involving someone traveling
>> from China to India. I'd learned about it in school, as did my Chinese
>> wife, so we both knew the background of the characters and such, which
>> made it a more enjoyable movie.
>
> Interesting. I didn't know that. Got a link/reference that I can look up?
I *believe* this is the monkey king of the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman
Altho the story they tell there is different from what I remember
hearing, and I can't seem to easily find references to what I remember
hearing.
This is another link to something like it:
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelstories/article/monkeyingaroundinchina_1206/
The start of the monkey king's journey to the west (i.e., into India) is
where the movie itself basically ends. This describes much more like the
story I remember, with the staff and golden headband.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
