>> Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant
>> of what happened last week" .....
> 
> No, it's not. I'm perfectly aware of what happened last week; it's last
> night I'm having a problem with :-) :-)

When I can't remember what happened last night, I like to make believe 
that I got laid, and the extreme chemical rush was the cause of my 
amnesia... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:38:57 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

Ah for shame Wikipedia says it wasn't shown in the USA, you missed some  
quality TV there.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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.

Spakespeare seems to have deliberately written Shylock so it's ambiguous 
exactly who he is. [Presumably this is why the bigwigs love Shakespeare 
so much...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:40:47 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
>> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
>
> Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant  
> of what happened last week" or some such. Unfortunately, "ignorant" has  
> gotten bad connotations and I don't know any word that means similar  
> that doesn't.  "Naive" is about as close as it comes.  (I have said  
> people are "computer naive" and it seems to bother people less than  
> saying they're "ignorant of computer technology" or some such.)

Only because they're ignorant about what naive means :-P

Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John didn't  
know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened  
last night" ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> So why does everybody act surprised that I don't know certain rather 
>> obscure facts? 
> 
> Because many of the facts you say you don't know really aren't very 
> obscure, or if they are obscure, shouldn't be obscure in *your* culture. 
> (Like, who RMS is. :-)

Meh. Who gets to decide what is or is not "obscure" anyway?

> Now, I'll grant that making movie references (like to the Wicked Witch), 
> I discounted that you're in a foreign country and maybe they don't show 
> that classic amazingly famous movie on TV every single year. But it *is* 
> classic *and* amazingly famous.

And it is also a movie that I really, really hate.

>> People accuse me of being stupid, but I do realise there was a real 
>> ship called the Titanic, that really did sink when it hit an iceberg. 
>> As surely does most of the population?
> 
> They'd say "Why should we? What makes you think we studied the same 
> history bits you did?"

Studied? No. Heard vague references to it? You'd think so...

>> To me, not recognising the theme tune to the Wicked Witch of the West 
>> just isn't on the same level as the two examples above.
> 
> Actually, I suspect you'd recognise it if you heard it.

I did. [Not much of a "tune" though - no idea who you'd whistle that...]

>> Depends if the actors know what the hell they're performing or not. ;-)
> 
> Well, true. This was a professionally-staged play, not a high-school 
> performance or something. :-)

Even BBC Spakespeare productions shown on TV look cripplingly low-budget 
and seem completely incomprehensible. [And I know the damned script!]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.
>> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I
>> win most of the time.
> 
> Depends on the game.  I can manage to win pretty consistently at 
> blackjack regardless of whether I win individual hands or not - with 
> enough money, that's easy to do using a simple geometric progression and 
> some restraint to "stick to the plan".  But if I put the idea into 
> practice in Las Vegas, I'd probably end up banned from the casinos if I 
> won too much.  The house doesn't like to lose, and they don't like when 
> people who understand how to turn the odds in their favour show up and 
> provide a real-world demonstration that it is in fact possible.
> 
> Even still, if you're careful, you can manage to do this and not get 
> caught at it - changing tables or casinos frequently makes it very 
> difficult for them to track a pattern.  Not following the geometric 
> progression exactly also helps make it less obvious.
> 
> Some games are rigged closely enough to 50/50 odds that most people don't 
> think about the fact that they're not.  Roulette is one like that; IIRC, 
> your odds of winning are not 50% but 47%.

I love the way people say "rigged". I mean, you walk up to a towering 
casino that's using 200 kW to light up half the Vegas night sky, and you 
wonder how they pay for this? Well *obviously* the dice are stacked in 
their favour - if it weren't, they'd go out of business pretty damned 
fast. ;-) It's their *job* to take your money way... They just do a good 
job of making it look like "luck".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:52:24 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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" ;)

Likewise I think it was in the Science of the Discworld: The Globe that  
had two characters discussing one of Shakespeares plays and discussing a  
line that near had them wet themselves with laughter and to which modern  
readers would be going "Huh?"

Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Ophelia: No, my lord.
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Aye, my lord.
Hamlet: Do you think I meant country matters?
Ophelia: I think nothing, my lord.
Hamlet: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...

> 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.

Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Jun 2008 22:31:59 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Lead on, McDuff"
>> 
>> "Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what Richard's got to do with it.....
>

That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:08:56 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Spakespeare seems to have deliberately written Shylock so it's ambiguous 
>exactly who he is. [Presumably this is why the bigwigs love Shakespeare 
>so much...]

Yes, it is open to interpretation and that is how literary types spend
their time :)
He is not (IMO) just a pantomime villain but a man driven to
distraction by the prejudice against his religion. (Jews gave Jesus up
for crucifixion, all of them are to blame) And later with his daughter
eloping with a gentile.

Now the Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe, was written about the
same time and does not suffer from the same claims of anti-Semitism.
Maybe because it is less well known or maybe because Barabas is just
an evil man who is also a Jew.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message