On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
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

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.)

-- 
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

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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. :-)

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.

> See, now I wouldn't even bother watching such a film, since clearly I 
> won't understand any of it.

It's not that you won't understand it. It's perfectly comprehensible on 
it's own. It's a *bonus* that you already know the characters from 
something else.

It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's 
funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know 
he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.

[1] Stan Lee - the guy who invented most of Marvel's comic book characters.

> 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?"

That's culture. You *hope* people studied a lot of the same sorts of 
things you did.

> 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iQjXPKfWNY

And now if you just saw that video without any context, you'd understand 
the person's opinion of Hillary Clinton, see.

> 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...

Uh, I think the point is to listen to the judge reprimand of Shylock's 
behavior in order to understand what someone else would mean if they 
called you a Shylock. Don'tcha think? :-)

> 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. :-)

-- 
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

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.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:57:45 -0400, Warp wrote:

> First law of interaction between people: Communication will not succeed,
> except by random chance.

False, provided that they speak the same language - and I don't mean just 
using the same words and grammar.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:54:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's
> funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know
> he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.

He seems to do a lot of those in the Marvel Comics' movies.  I think he's 
been in each one of them, in fact.

Had a good laugh when he turned up in Iron Man, ostensibly as Hugh 
Heffner.  Of course, he was credited in the credits as playing "himself".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:42:00 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Wicket Witch of the West.

Wicke*d*.  Sheesh.  Oh, and I'll have to assume that it's the one from 
The Wizard of Oz.  The way I read the comment, I thought what was being 
said was the title of a movie or TV programme.

Seems I misunderstood. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 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" .....

No, it's not. I'm perfectly aware of what happened last week; it's last
night I'm having a problem with :-) :-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

> Don't remind be. I cracked a laptop's LCD panel last year. The surface was
> fine, something was cracked underneath. Large portions of the screen are 
> now
> black.

I did exactly the same to my cell phone display, it was in my pocket while I 
put most of my weight onto it while taking a pool shot :-)  A few minutes 
later I looked at it and the screen had gone all funky colours with a big 
crack across it.  Luckily it was under a year old, and for some reason they 
replaced it with a new one free of charge (of course I forgot to mention 
that I knew exactly how it broke).

> Repair place quoted me R8000 to replace the panel, and that was a 17" 
> laptop
> screen. I'd hate to see the price to replace a 40" LCD TV's panel.

Might as well just buy a new one I think, there's not much else of value 
inside a TV (compared to say a laptop).

Post a reply to this message

> I read Nokia actually has a touchscreen that gives tactile feedback. 
> There's something behind it that "taps" from behind when the key would 
> click, or some such silliness. :-)

I guess it saves them having to write a responsive GUI :-)

The worst thing is when you have absolutely no feedback that you've pressed 
the touch screen - I used a terminal to buy a train ticket somewhere like 
that (can't remember where now).  First you had to press the button quite 
hard (harder than you would normally to start with), and then the screen 
didn't show any sign that you'd pressed it until about 2 seconds later when 
it would update the display based on whatever you had selected.  Worst thing 
was that it would buffer up your inputs somehow, so if you hit the same 
button 5 times trying to get it to work, you end up stuck there for 5 
minutes and with 3 1st class tickets for dogs and bikes.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:25:27 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
>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.
>
That's the argument that I used to use until I realised that it was my
own personal likes I was trying to promote. Anyway it is not taught
like that in Britain, at least not when I was at school. We were given
school editions with the obvious smutty bits cut out. (Put your hand
to the buttery bar etc.) We concentrate on the "beauty" of the
language, the relevance to modern day and "you will learn it 'cause I
say so. Not on the entertainment and fun. Countrie matters, rustics
and rude mechanicals are treated as something to apologise for. (Even
The Great Shakespeare had to pander to the base tastes of the paying
public.) 
OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
not :)
Yes! Stephen get down off the stove you're too old to be riding the
range :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
> not :)

Jesus... I've never seen anybody actually give a **** about mere 
Shakespeare before! o_O

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:04 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>and to which modern  
>readers would be going "Huh?"

Do you think so? 

It is subtle by his lights, try from Midsummer Nights Dream.

THISBY. O wall, full often hast thou beard my moans,
    For parting my fair Pyramus and me!
    My cherry lips have often kiss'd thy stones,
    Thy stones with lime and hair knit up in thee.
…

THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:27:43 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
>> not :)
>
>Jesus... I've never seen anybody actually give a **** about mere 
>Shakespeare before! o_O

Well you've never lived.

'Tis but a passion :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> 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" ;-)

  A problem happens when you need a noun instead of a verb. For example in
something like "John is ashamed of showing is ignorance about what happened
last night".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:17:33 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> 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" ;-)
>
>   A problem happens when you need a noun instead of a verb. For example  
> in
> something like "John is ashamed of showing is ignorance about what  
> happened last night".

"John is ashamed of admitting that he doesn't know what happened last  
night"

Amazing how it is possible to reword almost anything :-)

-- 
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

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:42:25 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:04 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> and to which modern
>> readers would be going "Huh?"
>
> Do you think so?

In this particular instance something like 'My Lord doth doff his cap' I  
think it was just an attempt to show that unless you lived at that time  
and in that culture you can't truely appreciate the plays to their fullest.

> It is subtle by his lights, try from Midsummer Nights Dream.
>
> THISBY. O wall, full often hast thou beard my moans,
>     For parting my fair Pyramus and me!
>     My cherry lips have often kiss'd thy stones,
>     Thy stones with lime and hair knit up in thee.
> …
>
> THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.

and of course almost anything that Mercutio utters in R&J :-)

-- 
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

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:19:22 +0100, Invisible 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%.
> 
> 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".

Yep, and they're very, very protective of making sure they *keep* winning 
and the patrons *keep* losing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:15:13 +0100, Invisible wrote:

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

The collective.  If most people know something, it's not obscure, it's 
common knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:29:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> 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 ???

Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it really 
was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the 'A' is 
there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's Holistic 
Detective Agency".

At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Jun 2008 11:53:00 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>> That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
>
>Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it really 
>was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the 'A' is 
>there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's Holistic 
>Detective Agency".
>

He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)

>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>
The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish
footballer? No? maybe the actor?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> 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://bash.org/?868223

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
> No injuries, thankfully. I think we only had one person slip while 
> playing Tennis, and bowling in socks on a hardwood floor is just asking 
> to learn to do splits. I can just imagine someone going to the doctor 
> with a sprained wrist or elbow . . .
> Doc: "What have you been doing that might have caused this?"
> Patient: "Well, I've just been playing with my Wii."

Reminds me of Naked gun 33 1/3 (if someone remembers the English 
captions, feel free to fill up - I don't think Finnish will say much).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:

> http://bash.org/?868223

Hooooooohhhhhhhmygod!!!

My brain is hurting just from the mental image of that! >_<

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:54:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's
>> funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know
>> he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.
> 
> He seems to do a lot of those in the Marvel Comics' movies.  I think he's 
> been in each one of them, in fact.

It's in his contract, actually. They're obligated to put him in each movie.

> Had a good laugh when he turned up in Iron Man, ostensibly as Hugh 
> Heffner.  Of course, he was credited in the credits as playing "himself".

Yeah. Or the one in the Silver Surfer movie, where they don't let him 
into the wedding because he doesn't have an invitation, and he's all 
"But I'm Stan Lee!"

-- 
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

Phil Cook wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

Yep. *That* is the plot summary I remember. :-)

-- 
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

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:03:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Jun 2008 11:53:00 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
>>
>>Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it
>>really was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the
>>'A' is there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's
>>Holistic Detective Agency".
>>
>>
> He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
> see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
> uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)

There was no connection other than the name tripped that memory in my 
mind. :-)

>>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>>
> The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish footballer?
> No? maybe the actor?

Yes, the actor. ;-)  Played Richard in the radio version of DGHDA. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:07:09 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> http://bash.org/?868223
> 
> Hooooooohhhhhhhmygod!!!
> 
> My brain is hurting just from the mental image of that! >_<

Oedipus, eat your heart out....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:28:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:54:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's
>>> funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know
>>> he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.
>> 
>> He seems to do a lot of those in the Marvel Comics' movies.  I think
>> he's been in each one of them, in fact.
> 
> It's in his contract, actually. They're obligated to put him in each
> movie.

Ah, now I didn't know that.  Still, it's cool that they're doing that.

>> Had a good laugh when he turned up in Iron Man, ostensibly as Hugh
>> Heffner.  Of course, he was credited in the credits as playing
>> "himself".
> 
> Yeah. Or the one in the Silver Surfer movie, where they don't let him
> into the wedding because he doesn't have an invitation, and he's all
> "But I'm Stan Lee!"

You know, I need to rent that one and see it - I wanted to see it in the 
cinema, but we never got around to it.  I'm thinking we need to go see 
Hulk in the next day or so (taking a couple days off work).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> 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.

So you've seen it, but you don't think you'd recognise the music to it? 
And if person A called person B a "wicked witch of the west", you 
wouldn't know what they're talking about?

(FWIW, American Film Institute (the folks who bring you the Oscars) had 
a show yesterday of the top-10-top-10 movies. Wizard of Oz was the #1 
fantasy movie of all times. So, yeah, it's part of the culture, I'd 
think. :-)

-- 
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

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.ucxp5dx0c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> 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_120
6/
> > 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)
>

Awesome. Thank you both.

Post a reply to this message