>> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes 
>> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
> 
>   They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
> and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
> 
>   The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.

Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than 
just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.

>>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
>>>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start, 
>>> AFAICR.
> 
>> Yeah, that's puzzling.
> 
>   It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?

No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned 
>> out from the beginning? (Which is why the very first film is Episode 
>> IV.) And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the 
>> prequals are all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
> 
> This is actually BS if you ask me.  No author is ever 100% sure of where 
> the work will lead them.  This is valid to Lucas, Tolkien, Toriyama or 
> whomever claims a huge friggin work is all in their heads already in 
> pristine form.

Oh say, I'm just saying what Lucas claimed to have, not what he 
*actually* had. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

>>  From what I've seen, it's more like Smith hates having to stay in the 
>> Matrix, and he really wants to leave it. So he's taking over it... why?
> 
>   Wouldn't it be slightly easier to escape if you control the prison
> completely?

Well, perhaps...

>   Besides, he really hates humans, so it's a bonus.

This didn't come across all that strongly. Certainly he enjoys killing 
them, but I didn't get the impression that he's that hell-bend on 
eliminating them all.

>> (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
> 
>   It was renamed in retrospect. The original title was simply "Star Wars".
> It might even be possible Lucas hadn't plotted even the two sequels to
> that yet.

No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said 
"Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember 
wondering why...

>> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are 
>> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
> 
>   There's a thing called nostalgia filter.

So you disagree with every point made in that review then?

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

Post a reply to this message

>> The "swarm of Smiths" in Reloaded was just silly. He's surrounded by 
>> 2,000 Smiths, and yet at any second only 2 or maybe 3 of them are 
>> actually attacking him. Um, why? But more to the point, about halfway 
>> through it goes into surprisingly poor CGI. You'd think these guys 
>> could do CGI so well you couldn't even tell, but this stuff looks 
>> worse than some computer games that are rendered in realtime. WTF?
> 
> You are obviously full of BS.

Look who's talking.

> Models and renders are friggin' well done 
> -- you can even see sweat in the skin.  The only reason you notice they 
> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move, 
> even with the help of wires.

Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?

> Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome:  "ah, that's obviously CG!"

I thought JP was actually pretty good, mostly. (Some of the big "oh 
look, it's a dinosaur" shots were a bit over-detailed, but that's about 
all.)

> I'm pretty sure you didn't notice most of the CG doubles when they are 
> not obvious.

Probably not. But in the Swarm of Smiths, I did, and it looked tacky.

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

Post a reply to this message

>   You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
> since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
> chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
> start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
> always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".

You realise I've watched it several times, right?

It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I 
watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have 
a clearer idea.

I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for 
the sequal looked great... but the actual film wasn't very good. Having 
been disappointed with that, I was reluctant to bother watching the 
final film. It turns out that it's slightly better - although still 
nowhere near as good as the first.

>   If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
> prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
> it.

Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make 
sense.

Oh, wait... yes it is.

>> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example. 
>> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked 
>> it. Good for them...
> 
>   Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
> people didn't like it?

I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily 
apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.

>   I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

>   I enjoy movies which need some thinking.

I don't mind films that require some thinking. (Certain film producers 
seem to believe any film which isn't 100% blindingly obvious won't be 
popular - presumably because the audience are idiots.) What I detest is 
films which deliberately don't tell you what happened. Some people 
apparently think it's cool to make a movie where at the end the audience 
is like "So... was it all a dream after all? Or did he really save the 
world?" I really hate that.

I also hate films where everybody dies at the end. Or almost everybody. 
I really enjoyed the Final Fantasy film, but the ending was 
disappointing. (My collegue remarked that this is apparently *the exact 
plot* of the computer games - which I've never really played.)

Thinking about it, the subsequent Matrix films tick both boxes: At the 
end of the final film, almost everybody I was actually interested in is 
dead, and with the sun rising on a new day in an apparently unchanged 
Matrix, we're left wondering what the hell has happened. Is this just 
the start of another cycle? Or has the world actually changed?

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?

Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
videogame character in real-time.  Then, take your time to also show me how they
are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
perfect curves.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> 
> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> videogame character in real-time.

Oh how tedious...

> Then, take your time to also show me how they
> are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> perfect curves.

You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any 
known technology, right? I mean, I can't render one with a computer, I 
can't draw one with a pencil, I can't sculpt one out of clay... The 
human form is *far* too complex. The people who do this stuff for a 
living get paid hansomly _for a reason_.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
> sense.

You don't make sense in your criticisms of things you don't know.  But ok, this
is art -- or mere entertainment, your choice -- not knowledge, so it's really up
to your taste.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> >
> > Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> > videogame character in real-time.
>
> Oh how tedious...

BS that.  You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
reasoning.

> > Then, take your time to also show me how they
> > are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> > perfect curves.
>
> You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
> known technology, right?

That's ok, you can just show me that squarish SDL phone of yours.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are 
> >> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
> > 
> >   There's a thing called nostalgia filter.

> So you disagree with every point made in that review then?

  Every point in the review dealt with the original trilogy?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes 
> >> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
> > 
> >   They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
> > and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
> > 
> >   The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.

> Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than 
> just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.

  You mean:

 The Architect: "Ah, he is only going to take control of it, not destroy it?
Well, then it's all ok, I should just relax and not worry about a thing."

  And that would make sense to you?

> >>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> >>>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
> >>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start, 
> >>> AFAICR.
> > 
> >> Yeah, that's puzzling.
> > 
> >   It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?

> No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.

  I see no variation in quality.

  Or is your definition of "quality" whether you understand the plot or not?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
> > since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
> > chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
> > start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
> > always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".

> You realise I've watched it several times, right?

> It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I 
> watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have 
> a clearer idea.

  The review wasn't about The Matrix.

> I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for 
> the sequal looked great...

  How hard is it to write "sequel"?

> >   If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
> > prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
> > it.

> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make 
> sense.

> Oh, wait... yes it is.

  You consider yourself the absolute measurement of whether a movie makes
sense or not?

  If the movie makes sense to me, that's completely inconsequential? The
movie is still not good because it doesn't make sense to *you*?

> >> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example. 
> >> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked 
> >> it. Good for them...
> > 
> >   Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
> > people didn't like it?

> I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily 
> apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.

  Maybe you simply refuse to understand why, again because of some odd
principle of yours.

  How hard is it to say "I didn't like it, but I understand why someone
else would" (and really mean it)?

> >   I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.

> Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

  Is that a statement that you outright refuse to even try to make sense
of the plot? That someone else understanding it is just "an opinion"?

> >   I enjoy movies which need some thinking.

> I don't mind films that require some thinking.

  You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.

> (Certain film producers 
> seem to believe any film which isn't 100% blindingly obvious won't be 
> popular - presumably because the audience are idiots.) What I detest is 
> films which deliberately don't tell you what happened. Some people 
> apparently think it's cool to make a movie where at the end the audience 
> is like "So... was it all a dream after all? Or did he really save the 
> world?" I really hate that.

  But you surely understand why some people like for there to be gaps to
be filled by deduction?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
>>> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
>>> videogame character in real-time.
>> Oh how tedious...
> 
> BS that.  You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
> reasoning.

Right. So I'm going to load up the DVD, figure out how to take 
screenshots from the film, and shuffle back and forward to the right 
part of the movie to try to find a single still frame which illustrates 
the point I'm trying to make, just because one random guy on the 
Internet accuses me of being a liar?

...or I could just let you continue thinking I'm a liar, and go do 
something more productive.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than 
>> just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
> 
>   You mean:
> 
>  The Architect: "Ah, he is only going to take control of it, not destroy it?
> Well, then it's all ok, I should just relax and not worry about a thing."
> 
>   And that would make sense to you?

It's not clear to me that Smith has the *ability* to destroy the Matrix 
itself. If he does, then clearly that's a problem. (And I guess being 
able to transcend the Matrix itself and take control of people outside 
it implies that maybe he can...)

>> No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
> 
>   I see no variation in quality.
> 
>   Or is your definition of "quality" whether you understand the plot or not?

Well, understanding the plot is kind of prerequisit to enjoying the 
film. But I could also mention cut density, for example.

In the first film, how long does Neo spend waiting to see the Oracle? 
The whole journey there, the waiting room, etc. They could have cut that 
much shorter and make the fight scenes in other parts of the movie 
longer. But they didn't.

In the following two films, they did. (How many seconds does Neo spend 
at the deserted apartment saying "where are you?") It had the feel of 
"OK, how many fight scenes can we cram in?"

Don't get my wrong - some of the fight scenes in the sequals are *even 
better* than in the original. You *want* to like it... but the rest of 
the film is so drab, it's kind of hard to.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I 
>> watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have 
>> a clearer idea.
> 
>   The review wasn't about The Matrix.

No. But it makes some interesting points about what makes a film work, 
and what makes a film not work.

>> I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for 
>> the sequal looked great...
> 
>   How hard is it to write "sequel"?

How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for 
toffee. I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something. 
I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in 
20 minutes.

>> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make 
>> sense.
> 
>> Oh, wait... yes it is.
> 
>   You consider yourself the absolute measurement of whether a movie makes
> sense or not?

Last time I checked, I'm not the only person claiming the film wasn't 
very good. (Although admittedly that's not an infalible measurement 
either...)

>> I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily 
>> apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
> 
>   Maybe you simply refuse to understand why, again because of some odd
> principle of yours.
> 
>   How hard is it to say "I didn't like it, but I understand why someone
> else would" (and really mean it)?

I just meant that I'm not sure what it is about it that made other 
people enjoy it. Clearly there was something, but I don't know what that 
something was.

>> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
> 
>   You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.

Right, because (say) Back To The Future doesn't require any thinking at 
all. That must be why I like it so much. :-)

>   But you surely understand why some people like for there to be gaps to
> be filled by deduction?

There's deduction, and there's guessing.

But sure, different people like different things. I was just saying what 
*I* happen to like.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   How hard is it to write "sequel"?

> How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for 
> toffee.

  At this point it feels like you are doing it deliberately.

  If you have learned to write words like "how" and "hard", it should be
quite easy to also learn to write words like "sequel". It's not that
difficult.

> I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something. 
> I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in 
> 20 minutes.

  Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.

> >> I don't mind films that require some thinking.
> > 
> >   You are making a good job at giving the opposite impression.

> Right, because (say) Back To The Future doesn't require any thinking at 
> all. That must be why I like it so much. :-)

  I don't see much to be deduced in that movie. It's pretty straightforward.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.

  It's not like *I* would always write perfect English, but at least I'm
willing to learn from my mistakes.

  For instance, for a long time I wrote "piratism" until someone pointe out
to me that it's actually "piracy" (the former could be classified as
Finglish). Likewise for a very long time I wrote sentences in the form
"I wonder what does this do", when the better way of writing it is
"I wonder what this does".

  One of the latest mistakes I have noticed is that I have been writing
for years "truely" when the proper word is "truly". Another is that I have
been writing "substraction" instead of "subtraction" (the former I have
"mislearned" from Spanish).

  Oh, and the latest one has been using "cursive" instead of "italic"
(again, Finglish).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:24:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
>> Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
>> the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
>> problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
>> amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
>> story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
>> we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
> 
> Interesting.  I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's 
> got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the 
> central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you 
> couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you 
> could do something that made you not be disabled.
> 
> Needless to say, my wife's friends who are disabled are fiercely 
> independent and find that premise to be quite offensive.
> 
> I may rent it on Netflix once just to see the effects, but I don't have 
> high hopes for the story.
> 
> Jim
Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it 
offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its 
anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if 
a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed, 
treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down 
their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though 
they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be 
excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that 
they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a 
chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with 
someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"

With all respect to your wife's friends, some of these people are worse 
assholes to "normal" people, than normal people have ever been to them, 
and its a damn movie, in which the character *wanted* to have the 
choice, as a means to work on the front lines, not some frakking
bunch of scientists picking people with missing legs out of a hospital 
wards and beaming them into blue aliens without their bloody permission 
or request. Not every attempt to solve basic malfunctions in the human 
body is a conspiracy to destroy the "specialness" of people who, for 
what ever reason, develop a damn stupid chip on their shoulder about not 
wanting to even have the option, because it makes them feel somehow 
better to be part of a group that where all mistreated by idiots years 
earlier, as a result of their differences.

Yes, there are some that think they *need* fixing. But that just proves 
that non-disabled people can be assholes too, not that the ones 
protesting someone *choosing* to deny the holy writ of the disabled are 
apostates for opting to try the alternative, especially of they are, 
"*gasp*", restoring something they already had, not being asked to be 
given sight, after being born without it, or some other situation, where 
they *might* have a point about it being offensive to try to even offer it.

This is almost as absurd, forgive me saying so, as the protesters 
against the film because they didn't pick **it** as some sort of soup 
box for gay love stories, but went with what *most* other films always 
have, and made the love interests male and female. Its just bloody 
ridiculous.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>   How hard is it to write "sequel"?
> 
>> How hard is it for you to get off my case? I *know* I can't spell for 
>> toffee.
> 
>   At this point it feels like you are doing it deliberately.
> 
>   If you have learned to write words like "how" and "hard", it should be
> quite easy to also learn to write words like "sequel". It's not that
> difficult.
> 
>> I didn't even learn to read until I was about 13 or something. 
>> I've always been rubbish at it. It's not like I can magically fix it in 
>> 20 minutes.
> 
>   Start one word at a time. "Sequel" is as good as any.
> 

You obviously don’t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion 
phrase word blindness is more descriptive. I’m twice Andrews’s age and 
there are still lots of words I forget how to spell even when I make a 
point of trying to learn them, although I do take the trouble to use a 
spell checker. (Hint to Andrew :P)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> You obviously don’t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion 
> phrase word blindness is more descriptive. I’m twice Andrews’s age and 
> there are still lots of words I forget how to spell even when I make a 
> point of trying to learn them, although I do take the trouble to use a 
> spell checker. (Hint to Andrew :P)

Hey, if you can tell me how to make Thunderbird's spellchecker actually 
work, I'm all ears.

(You'd *think* that just installing the right dictionary and turning on 
spell checking would do it... but apparently not.)

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

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> You obviously don?t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion 
> phrase word blindness is more descriptive.

  I thought that dyslexia is a disorder which manifests as a difficulty
in reading. While this may increase the time which one nees to learn to
write properly, I don't see it described as an absolute impediment which
completely stops the sufferer from learning to write words correctly.
(Basically, if the dyslexic person has difficulties in reading a world
properly and associating letters with sounds, he might learn to write the
word improperly as well, but I don't see anything in the description of
dyslexia which would stop him from being able to correct his mistake and
learn the correct spelling, especially when specifically pointe out.)

  I'm certainly not saying that Andrew is one of them, but I feel that many
people use things like dyslexia as a convenient excuse for laziness to
learn how to write properly.

  Is it medically impossible for a dyslexic person to learn to write a
word like "sequel" correctly? Or is it a question of learning?

  As I said, one word at a time, if nothing else helps.

  (Naturally this requires willingness to learn and to better oneself.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it 
> offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its 
> anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if 
> a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed, 
> treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down 
> their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though 
> they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be 
> excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that 
> they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a 
> chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with 
> someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"

  The attitude that many deaf people have towards people who can get their
deafness cured (even if only partially) has always baffled me. AFAIK deaf
people have a subculture of their own, but this is one part of it which
I think is total crap.

  For example there was a newspaper article here about a small boy who was
born in a family which had a hereditary condition which induced deafness, and
hence a big part of the family consisted of deaf people, and this boy was
born deaf too. However, in this particular case doctors found out that they
could cure the boy's hearing (I don't know if totally or partially, but
cure it nonetheless).

  Guess what, the other family members (except the boy's parents) strongly
opposed this (and this was the point of the newspaper article). They wanted
the boy to remain deaf because they felt he was being removed from the deaf
people subculture if he was cured. IIRC the parents didn't listen to them
and instead went with the operation, but nevertheless I think that strong
opposition from the family was a big bunch of BS. I really think that they
are protesting out of jealousy.

  I'm sure that not all deaf people are like this, but some certainly are.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion.  But I'll give those who are 
actually handicapped taking something like the premise behind this film a 
bit more credence when they stand out and say that the premise of the 
film is flawed because it makes the *assumption* (and therein lies the 
problem) that all people who are handicapped *want* to be "made whole" 
and feel inferior to fully-abled people.

The message that is being received by some in that community is "if 
you're handicapped, you're not a whole person" - and if I were 
handicapped, I'd find that suggestion offensive as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion.  But I'll give those who are 
> actually handicapped taking something like the premise behind this film a 
> bit more credence when they stand out and say that the premise of the 
> film is flawed because it makes the *assumption* (and therein lies the 
> problem) that all people who are handicapped *want* to be "made whole" 
> and feel inferior to fully-abled people.

  I haven't seen the movie, but is the premise really "*all* people who are
handicapped want to be made whole", or that some handicapped people do?

  (Besides, I'm pretty certain that if a perfect cure for, let's say,
paraplegia was discovered, not many paraplegics would keep up with their
"I'm a normal, whole person, I can live a full life like I am" principle,
if they can be cured easily, and instead they would go and get cured. It
wouldn't make too much sense to keep up such appearances.)

> The message that is being received by some in that community is "if 
> you're handicapped, you're not a whole person" - and if I were 
> handicapped, I'd find that suggestion offensive as well.

  I'm in no way severely handicapped myself, and such I'm not anybody to
talk. However, the worst thing I have is a diminished hearing in my left
ear due to a long history of cholesteatoma and later complications. For
quite many years I had some chronic infection in the middle ear due to
some recurrence of cholesteatoma-like tissue or something like that,
which appeared during my teen years. The chronic infection kept a
punctured whole in my tympanic membrane (not removing hearing completely,
but diminishing it significantly). The worst handicap this caused was that
any significant amount of humidity would trigger serious infectious
complications, requiring medical attention (antibiotics, etc). I had to
avoid going to any humid places without ear protection, and going underwater
when swimming was absolutely out of question.

  I did not consider my condition "normal" or that I was completely "whole"
and healthy. It sometimes severely limited what I could do, and infections
requiring medical attention were common.

  They made corrective surgery to me, removing that extraneous tissue and
repairing the eardrum. After recuperating I have had no infections whatsoever
and I'm fully able to dive without problems. My hearing has not recuperated
completely (which is normal and to be expected), but it's better than
before. While there are certain situations where the impaired hearing is
a bother, I can say that my quality of life has been significantly improved
after the surgery.

  I really wouldn't want to offend any handicapped people, but I honestly
think that when people with incurable handicaps or diseases vehemently
state that they are "whole" and that they can live life to the fullest
regardless of their handicap, they are just denying the truth. If that
makes them happier, then good for them, but I really think that honesty
wouldn't hurt that much (especially when expressing to others about your
condition). Also getting offended because "healthy" people assume that
it would be the dream of the handicapped person to get cured, is a bit
too much. I really think that being offended by something like this is
just a symptom of denial of the truth. I don't think anybody *wants* to
be handicapped.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You obviously don’t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion 
>> phrase word blindness is more descriptive. I’m twice Andrews’s age and 
>> there are still lots of words I forget how to spell even when I make a 
>> point of trying to learn them, although I do take the trouble to use a 
>> spell checker. (Hint to Andrew :P)
> 
> Hey, if you can tell me how to make Thunderbird's spellchecker actually 
> work, I'm all ears.
> 
> (You'd *think* that just installing the right dictionary and turning on 
> spell checking would do it... but apparently not.)
> 

I only installed Thunderbird a couple of months ago and the spell 
checking worked as default.:o But even so I still type everything in M$ 
Word.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > Interesting.  I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's
> > got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the
> > central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you
> > couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you
> > could do something that made you not be disabled.
> > Jim
> Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it
> offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its
> anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if
> a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed,
> treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down
> their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though
> they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be
> excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that
> they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a
> chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with
> someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"
>
> With all respect to your wife's friends, some of these people are worse
> assholes to "normal" people, than normal people have ever been to them,
> and its a damn movie, in which the character *wanted* to have the
> choice, as a means to work on the front lines, not some frakking
> bunch of scientists picking people with missing legs out of a hospital
> wards and beaming them into blue aliens without their bloody permission
> or request. Not every attempt to solve basic malfunctions in the human
> body is a conspiracy to destroy the "specialness" of people who, for
> what ever reason, develop a damn stupid chip on their shoulder about not
> wanting to even have the option, because it makes them feel somehow
> better to be part of a group that where all mistreated by idiots years
> earlier, as a result of their differences.
>
> Yes, there are some that think they *need* fixing. But that just proves
> that non-disabled people can be assholes too, not that the ones
> protesting someone *choosing* to deny the holy writ of the disabled are
> apostates for opting to try the alternative, especially of they are,
> "*gasp*", restoring something they already had, not being asked to be
> given sight, after being born without it, or some other situation, where
> they *might* have a point about it being offensive to try to even offer it.
>
> This is almost as absurd, forgive me saying so, as the protesters
> against the film because they didn't pick **it** as some sort of soup
> box for gay love stories, but went with what *most* other films always
> have, and made the love interests male and female. Its just bloody
> ridiculous.

I would never find better wording for it...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> You obviously don?t know what dyslexia is like maybe the old fashion 
>> phrase word blindness is more descriptive.
> 
>   I thought that dyslexia is a disorder which manifests as a difficulty
> in reading. 

That is true but, speaking only for myself, it also shows up when writing.

> While this may increase the time which one nees to learn to
> write properly, I don't see it described as an absolute impediment which
> completely stops the sufferer from learning to write words correctly.

Again in my case, I have difficulty in remembering how to spell words. 
For instance it is only recently that I have been able to spell “minute” 
or “language” I would learn the words then a couple of hours later I 
could not remember the spelling. Most irritating. (Strangely it seems 
that my spelling is better when I type as my typing fingers are 
connected differently to my brain than my writing fingers, if that makes 
any sense?)

> (Basically, if the dyslexic person has difficulties in reading a world
> properly and associating letters with sounds, he might learn to write the
> word improperly as well, but I don't see anything in the description of
> dyslexia which would stop him from being able to correct his mistake and
> learn the correct spelling, especially when specifically pointe out.)
> 

That is because you are normal(ish) ;)

>   I'm certainly not saying that Andrew is one of them, but I feel that many
> people use things like dyslexia as a convenient excuse for laziness to
> learn how to write properly.
> 

Yes I agree with you. Many people say that they are dyslexic when they 
have not learned to read or write properly.

>   Is it medically impossible for a dyslexic person to learn to write a
> word like "sequel" correctly? Or is it a question of learning?
> 


I suppose it depends on which medic you speak to :)

>   As I said, one word at a time, if nothing else helps.
> 
>   (Naturally this requires willingness to learn and to better oneself.)
> 

A couple of other things. Every week I was beaten at school with a 
leather belt for my bad spelling. You would think that that would be an 
encouragement to learn to spell correctly. I also have difficulty in 
remembering how to pronounce certain words. If you said one of then to 
me I would be able to use it for a couple of hours then forget how it 
was said shortly after. I don’t have any problems reading at least to 
myself.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> could not remember the spelling. Most irritating. (Strangely it seems
> that my spelling is better when I type as my typing fingers are
> connected differently to my brain than my writing fingers, if that makes
> any sense?)

the brain is mysterious and curious device.  I mostly don't remember phone
numbers (not just because they're already in some memory other than mine), but I
remember the sequence of typings I need to go through to call someone.  I'm much
better with spatial configurations than with mere plain sequences.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> the brain is mysterious and curious device.  I mostly don't remember phone
> numbers (not just because they're already in some memory other than mine), but I
> remember the sequence of typings I need to go through to call someone.  I'm much
> better with spatial configurations than with mere plain sequences.
> 
> 
I can remember numbers, phone or equipment numbers but I don’t bother to 
remember PIN numbers or passwords as my fingers do that on their own. :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> the brain is mysterious and curious device.  I mostly don't remember phone
> numbers (not just because they're already in some memory other than mine), but I
> remember the sequence of typings I need to go through to call someone.  I'm much
> better with spatial configurations than with mere plain sequences.

Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk, your 
fingers remember how to hold a pen, and with sufficient practice, your 
fingers can learn to type numbers even if you can't remember what the 
hell the numbers are. I've seen people pretend to type a number just so 
that they can figure out what the number is.

If you think that's weird, I can play the Widor Toccata despite not 
remembering what the notes are...

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk

  Perhaps reading out loud what you write could help? I'm pretty sure you
don't pronounce "you're" the same as you pronounce "your".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2009 22:31, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk
> 
>   Perhaps reading out loud what you write could help? I'm pretty sure you
> don't pronounce "you're" the same as you pronounce "your".
> 
I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would not 
make that mistake.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 21-12-2009 22:31, Warp wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk
> > 
> >   Perhaps reading out loud what you write could help? I'm pretty sure you
> > don't pronounce "you're" the same as you pronounce "your".
> > 
> I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would not 
> make that mistake.

  Do British people pronounce "you" and "your" the same way?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would not 
> make that mistake.

Indeed, the pronounciation is pretty similar.

Much like the way every known human pronounces "flower" and "flour" 
identically.

On the other hand, I frequently get "make" and "made" mixed up, for an 
entirely different reason. :-/

Basically I suck at writing...

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > On 21-12-2009 22:31, Warp wrote:
> > > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > >> Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk
> > >
> > >   Perhaps reading out loud what you write could help? I'm pretty sure you
> > > don't pronounce "you're" the same as you pronounce "your".
> > >
> > I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would not
> > make that mistake.
>
>   Do British people pronounce "you" and "your" the same way?

Many of us pronounce "you're" and "your" the same, myself included. It's a very
common mistake to get them confused in writing.

(excusable? no. common? yes. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk
> 
>   Perhaps reading out loud what you write could help? I'm pretty sure you
> don't pronounce "you're" the same as you pronounce "your".
> 

That's what I do to remember numbers. Say them out loud so I can hear 
them. That way there are two input paths ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> On 21-12-2009 22:31, Warp wrote:
>>>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> Oh no, that's quite common. You're legs remember how to walk
>>>>   Perhaps reading out loud what you write could help? I'm pretty sure you
>>>> don't pronounce "you're" the same as you pronounce "your".
>>>>
>>> I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would not
>>> make that mistake.
>>   Do British people pronounce "you" and "your" the same way?
> 
> Many of us pronounce "you're" and "your" the same, myself included. It's a very
> common mistake to get them confused in writing.
> 
> (excusable? no. common? yes. ;-)
> 
> 
He're he're ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> Basically I suck 
> 

So you do have some use :P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > (excusable? no. common? yes. ;-)
> >
> He're he're ;)

Argh, the pain! Must... suppress... pedantry...

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2009 23:31, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would 
>> not make that mistake.
> 
> Indeed, the pronunciation is pretty similar.
> 
> Much like the way every known human pronounces "flower" and "flour" 
> identically.

So, am I not human or am I not known? I do pronounce them differently. 
flower is a clear 2 syllable word whereas flour is almost a one syllable 
word for me. Subtle but definitely not identical.
Or do you mean that I pronounce the Dutch words for flower (bloem) and 
flour (bloem) the same? Because that is indeed the case.


> On the other hand, I frequently get "make" and "made" mixed up, for an 
> entirely different reason. :-/
> 
> Basically I suck at writing...

Nothing a good editor would not catch. I have a different problem: the 
good editor catches nothing.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> (excusable? no. common? yes. ;-)
>>>
>> He're he're ;)
> 
> Argh, the pain! Must... suppress... pedantry...
> 
> 

:) LOL

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 21-12-2009 23:31, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>
>>> I am pretty sure he does pronounce them the same, otherwise he would 
>>> not make that mistake.
>>
>> Indeed, the pronunciation is pretty similar.
>>
>> Much like the way every known human pronounces "flower" and "flour" 
>> identically.
> 
> So, am I not human or am I not known? 

He missed out too posh and Dutch ;)

> I do pronounce them differently. 
> flower is a clear 2 syllable word whereas flour is almost a one syllable 
> word for me. Subtle but definitely not identical.

I would only consciously pronounce them differently if any confusion 
would arise such as “The flour on the floor wasn’t a flower”

> Or do you mean that I pronounce the Dutch words for flower (bloem) and 
> flour (bloem) the same? Because that is indeed the case.
> 

LOL

> 
>> On the other hand, I frequently get "make" and "made" mixed up, for an 
>> entirely different reason. :-/
>>
>> Basically I suck at writing...
> 
> Nothing a good editor would not catch. I have a different problem: the 
> good editor catches nothing.
> 

You are that good? :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you think that's weird, I can play the Widor Toccata despite not
> remembering what the notes are...

I was just about to make that same observation about my piano playing.  Ever
looked at your hands while playing?  They look and feel like alive critters,
detached from yourself, executing their own, obscure jig.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Much like the way every known human pronounces "flower" and "flour"
> identically.

I thought flour was more like floor. :)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:14:41 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Much like the way every known human pronounces "flower" and "flour"
>> identically.
>
> I thought flour was more like floor. :)
>

I hear English teachers are in big demand in your country :)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:14:41 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Much like the way every known human pronounces "flower" and "flour"
> >> identically.
> >
> > I thought flour was more like floor. :)
> >
>
> I hear English teachers are in big demand in your country :)

That's a side effect of almost pure writting skills with no oral practice.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion.  But I'll give those who are 
> actually handicapped taking something like the premise behind this film a 
> bit more credence when they stand out and say that the premise of the 
> film is flawed because it makes the *assumption* (and therein lies the 
> problem) that all people who are handicapped *want* to be "made whole" 
> and feel inferior to fully-abled people.
> 
> The message that is being received by some in that community is "if 
> you're handicapped, you're not a whole person" - and if I were 
> handicapped, I'd find that suggestion offensive as well.
> 
> Jim

My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people, 
not what is at all intended. As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you 
can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a 
matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. Mind, I 
still haven't seen it yet, so can't say for sure, but neither have the 
people **making** the claim. As such I am highly skeptical that this is 
an accurate portrayal of what the film intends, never mind does, 
suggest, except in the minds of someone over sensitive of the issue. It 
sounds too much like the ridiculous gibberish you got from the barely 
recognizable adaption of "The Golden Compass", by just about everyone 
with some sort of imaginary chip on their shoulder, none of whom had 
read the book, and all of whom thought they could pronounce about the 
content of a movie that wasn't even showing in theaters yet, based on 
what they *imagined* the book said, sight unseen.

In other words, I have seen, and too often now expect, reactionary 
behavior, not clear arguments, from people that have no way of knowing, 
since they couldn't have possibly seen anything suggesting what they 
claim, and refuse to see the movie, so don't know what it actually does 
say/suggest. People do irrational things when they *think* something is 
attacking something they care about, and they will often do so in the 
complete absence of information. And, unfortunately, some people make 
the "disabled community", and their particular hangups on some things, 
almost religious in intensity and reactionary behavior.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> I was just about to make that same observation about my piano playing.  Ever
> looked at your hands while playing?  They look and feel like alive critters,
> detached from yourself, executing their own, obscure jig.

More importantly, get stuck half way through and you now have a problem, 
since you remember where to move your fingers to next, but not where 
they're supposed to start from. o_O

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:25:03 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>  You're legs remember how to walk

Until you break one, anyways.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people,
> not what is at all intended. 

That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not 
thought about at all, though it should be.

> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you
> can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a
> matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. 

Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to, 
because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires 
effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People 
are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that 
isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our own 
views are the only thing that matters, right?

> Mind, I
> still haven't seen it yet, so can't say for sure, but neither have the
> people **making** the claim. As such I am highly skeptical that this is
> an accurate portrayal of what the film intends, never mind does,
> suggest, except in the minds of someone over sensitive of the issue. It
> sounds too much like the ridiculous gibberish you got from the barely
> recognizable adaption of "The Golden Compass", by just about everyone
> with some sort of imaginary chip on their shoulder, none of whom had
> read the book, and all of whom thought they could pronounce about the
> content of a movie that wasn't even showing in theaters yet, based on
> what they *imagined* the book said, sight unseen.

Well, yeah, that's also why I'm reserving judgment, because you can't 
base an opinion about a film on what's in a 3-minute trailer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message