 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:03:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
> You must know how it looks when you do that constantly, yet you keep
> doing it again and again.
No moreso than you must know how it looks when you behave like this.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Wait... The WWW had a *theme*??
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze my why you are so eager to shout about your
> > ignorance about things.
> It never ceases to amaze me how you like to remind me what a stupid
> ignorant fool I am at every possible opportunity.
I would have had quite many opportunities to comment on your posts,
but I promised I would stop that. This time I just couldn't resist.
Besides, when I used the word "ignorant" I used it to mean "doesn't
know things". The negative connotations are your own interpretation.
> [Or that not knowing fact X qualifies somebody as "ignorant". As if
> there's some magical set of facts that all human beings are innantely
> expected to know...]
As I said in the part which you didn't quote, I was not talking about
what you do and don't know, but about your constant eagerness to show your
ignorance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It strikes me that the thing about "culture" is that it is entirely
> dependent on who you hang out with.
Ummmm, yes? <Darren> fighting the urge to say "Duh!" </Darren>
;-)
Seriously, that's kind of what culture *is*. That's why people talk
about "Western culture" and "Pop culture" and "Asian culture" and so on.
The thing about reading "literature" is that lots of different cultures
(both in time and space) have read the same literature, so it gives you
a common background with more people than "emo culture" or "star trek
culture."
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.
> I played Shylock.
And you don't understand what it means to call someone a Shylock?
> Best thing about performing Shakespeare: If you make a mistake, nobody
> in the audience will ever know. They can't understand a word you're
> saying, AND THEY DON'T CARE ANYWAY. Really reduces the pressure! ;-)
Heh. Actually, I found Shakespeare to be *way* more interesting when
performed live than either reading it or seeing it as a movie. It's a
completely different experience.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
Losing $1 just doesn't hurt as much as losing $1,000,000. It's not all
the numbers in the game. It's also the numbers outside the game.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It strikes me that the thing about "culture" is that it is entirely
>> dependent on who you hang out with.
>
> Ummmm, yes? <Darren> fighting the urge to say "Duh!" </Darren>
>
> ;-)
>
> Seriously, that's kind of what culture *is*.
So why does everybody act surprised that I don't know certain rather
obscure facts? It's not like everybody knows everything, or lived life
the exact same way...
> 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.
See, now I wouldn't even bother watching such a film, since clearly I
won't understand any of it.
OTOH, a friend of mine commented on something that happened on the way
out of the cinema after watching Titanic. Some person says to their
friend "seriously, apparently it's based on a true story". And their
friend was like "don't be so stupid! How can it be based on a real story?"
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?
And then there was that time my mum wanted to go see Jesus Christ
Superstar. At the end we walked back to the car in silence. And as we
get into the car, mum goes "well that was a bit depressing". Like, WTF?
Did you not know he was going to DIE at the end? Have you not read the
book?!?
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.
>> 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...
>> Best thing about performing Shakespeare: If you make a mistake, nobody
>> in the audience will ever know. They can't understand a word you're
>> saying, AND THEY DON'T CARE ANYWAY. Really reduces the pressure! ;-)
>
> Heh. Actually, I found Shakespeare to be *way* more interesting when
> performed live than either reading it or seeing it as a movie. It's a
> completely different experience.
Depends if the actors know what the hell they're performing or not. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> It never ceases to amaze my why you are so eager to shout about your
>>> ignorance about things.
>
>> It never ceases to amaze me how you like to remind me what a stupid
>> ignorant fool I am at every possible opportunity.
>
> I would have had quite many opportunities to comment on your posts,
> but I promised I would stop that. This time I just couldn't resist.
>
> Besides, when I used the word "ignorant" I used it to mean "doesn't
> know things". The negative connotations are your own interpretation.
OK, fair enough. In English it's almost always used with negative intent...
> As I said in the part which you didn't quote, I was not talking about
> what you do and don't know, but about your constant eagerness to show your
> ignorance.
You don't learn things by pretending to know everything, surely? ;-)
["The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing." Famous
dead dude.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> You don't learn things by pretending to know everything, surely? ;-)
But in the era of the internet the usual thing to do is to look up
the thing on google or wikipedia so that you know what people are talking
about (or if the thing is irrelevant, just shrug and think "I see", or
whatever).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:52:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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%.
> Losing $1 just doesn't hurt as much as losing $1,000,000. It's not all
> the numbers in the game. It's also the numbers outside the game.
True.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:56:21 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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.
Hell, I'd never even HEARD of Wicket Witch of the West. I haven't yet
bothered to look up what it is, so I'm more clueless than you about
what's being talked about here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
