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

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:18 -0500, Warp wrote:

>  I don't think anybody *wants* to be
> handicapped.

People who are handicapped and have learned to deal with it and lead what 
by their own measure is a normal life are pretty amazing; nobody wants to 
be unable to do things they want to, sure - but also many people who do 
have permanent handicaps do not want to be treated differently or told 
that they're not "normal".  That reminder is quite painful for some, 
because it focuses on what they *can't* do (or more often, on what abled 
people think they can't do) rather than what they *can*.

That's the problem some of the people I know in that community have with 
it - the idea that it focuses on what the injured soldiers can't do and 
that they couldn't possibly lead a fulfilling life without being made 
"whole".  Again, based on a 3-minute trailer, so I'm reserving judgment 
until I've had a chance to see it, but I can understand why it might piss 
some people off.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
> 
I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person 
making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference 
that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact 
that they *might* be offending by it? That's completely ridiculous, and 
if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you 
should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the 
British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the 
Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it. 
Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not 
unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people 
might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different. 
Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.


>> 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?
> 
Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should 
be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of 
thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the 
only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with 
what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica 
in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.

-- 
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

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

And one output path, meaning you need to process and cache them while
you're saying them.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> That's what I do to remember numbers. Say them out loud so I can hear
>> them. That way there are two input paths ;)
>>
> 
> And one output path, meaning you need to process and cache them while
> you're saying them.
> 

That's easy :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> That's easy :)
> 

Well yes, I just tried to point out that it also has it's work in
remembering better.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person
> making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference
> that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact
> that they *might* be offending by it? 

No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more 
interesting, for one thing.  Using stereotypes and characters based on 
stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many 
people.

> That's completely ridiculous, and
> if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you
> should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the
> British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the
> Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it.

We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that 
matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.

At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in 
reality.

> Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not
> unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people
> might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different.
> Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.

Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to 
have a problem.  That's the problem.  You generally don't find 30's 
cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the 
stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some 
old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc 
actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).

>>> 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?
>> 
> Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should
> be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of
> thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the
> only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with
> what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica
> in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.

Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things 
like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness 
that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in 
general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me 
understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a 
good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is 
trying to do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person
>> making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference
>> that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact
>> that they *might* be offending by it? 
> 
> No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more 
> interesting, for one thing.  Using stereotypes and characters based on 
> stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many 
> people.
> 
Saw it today. I think the stereotype goes both directions. He *could 
have* got a spinal fix, but the military pay he got couldn't pay for it, 
and no one else would either. In the end, the jerk he works for offers 
it to him for how "valuable" he was to the cause, but... lets just say 
that things don't quite work out with him getting it. One of the 
comments he makes on why he went there, and even put up with some of the 
comments made as he exist the ramp to enter the base is, "Maybe I got 
tired of doctors telling me what I *can't* do."

Some people will be offended just to be offended. Nothing you will do 
will satisfy them, and they will **usually** jump to conclusions. If 
some people need to be more aware of their audiences, as you say, then 
they audiences need to be more open to the reality that not everything 
is about **them** either. They have their own "stereotypes", one of 
which is, "Everyone else thinks we need to be fixed, and will be 
assholes about it." It doesn't matter if you are or not, they will judge 
you based on what they imagine, not on what you meant, intended, or implied.

>> That's completely ridiculous, and
>> if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you
>> should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the
>> British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the
>> Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it.
> 
> We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that 
> matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.
> 
> At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in 
> reality.
> 
It was the only thing I could think of at the time. But you know what I 
meant.

>> Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not
>> unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people
>> might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different.
>> Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.
> 
> Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to 
> have a problem.  That's the problem.  You generally don't find 30's 
> cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the 
> stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some 
> old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc 
> actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).
> 
True enough. You also don't see them on because the characters often did 
some damn stupid stuff. The "Editing" done on the famous 'Daffy in a 
devil suit with a gas can' episode being a good example of the 
hyper-sensitivity some people have developed over some things. Last I 
checked, no one of my parents generation tried to fry themselves, or do 
any of the other stupid stuff, based on cartoons. A few, including my 
own relatives, tried things, like jumping from a roof with an umbrella, 
without even needing such prompting. :p

>>>> 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?
>>>
>> Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should
>> be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of
>> thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the
>> only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with
>> what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica
>> in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.
> 
> Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things 
> like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness 
> that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in 
> general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me 
> understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a 
> good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is 
> trying to do.
> 
> Jim

And, some groups are loud and obnoxious enough that you don't offend 
them, on fear of offending someone else, for being identified as someone 
willing to offending the first bunch, even if the original people are a 
small minority, and the offense is bordering on the imaginary. They all 
need to frakking grow up.

-- 
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

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> That's easy :)
>>
> 
> Well yes, I just tried to point out that it also has it's work in
> remembering better.
> 
> -Aero

And so you did :)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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...

Nope.  When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out, 
I went "WTF? Episode 4?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I *know* I can't spell for toffee. 

I have found what helps is to notice what you regularly write but get wrong, 
then looking for an mnemonic to memorize it.

Necessary. Embarrassed. Ridiculous. Conscience. Non-sequitur. All these are 
words I had to consciously take time to just sit and memorize.  It just 
takes a bit of practice.

That works more poorly for idioms and such, if you're not a native speaker 
of the language, of course.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott 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? 

I haven't seen the film either, but I'm pretty sure from the previews that 
the guy is and wants to be a marine. Hard to do that with bum legs.

Kind of like an old M*A*S*H episode I remember, where they took a vein from 
a guy's arm to save his leg. Except he's a concert pianist. So he's all ticked.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I can understand why it might piss some people off.

I also remember a deaf friend (well, email-friend :-) getting pissed off 
because she couldn't win a video game, because she couldn't hear where the 
bad-guys were. (It might have been Thief, where a big part is figuring out 
where the enemy is based on the sound of their walking, talking, etc.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 28-12-2009 19:59, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I *know* I can't spell for toffee. 
> 
> I have found what helps is to notice what you regularly write but get 
> wrong, then looking for an mnemonic to memorize it.
> 
> Necessary. Embarrassed. Ridiculous. Conscience. Non-sequitur. All these 
> are words I had to consciously take time to just sit and memorize.  It 
> just takes a bit of practice.
> 
> That works more poorly for idioms and such, if you're not a native 
> speaker of the language, of course.

I don't think he is going to reply on that for a week. I can only assume 
that he trying not to meet foreigners and probably failing.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > 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...

> Nope.  When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out, 
> I went "WTF? Episode 4?"

  AFAIK the very first time Star Wars was shown on theaters it did not have
the subtitle "Episode 4", but the next movie did have "Episode 5" as its
subtitle when it first was shown (causing quite some confusion). Star Wars
was then retroactively given its "Episode 4" subtitle.

  So it seems that, indeed, Lucas had planned for a prequel trilogy right
from the beginning.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > > 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...
>
> > Nope.  When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out,
> > I went "WTF? Episode 4?"
>
>   AFAIK the very first time Star Wars was shown on theaters it did not have
> the subtitle "Episode 4", but the next movie did have "Episode 5" as its
> subtitle when it first was shown (causing quite some confusion). Star Wars
> was then retroactively given its "Episode 4" subtitle.
>
>   So it seems that, indeed, Lucas had planned for a prequel trilogy right
> from the beginning.

As I recall, both SW and Indiana Jones were conceived as homages to old movie
serials like the Perils of Pauline, Buck Rodgers and Flash Gordon.  The episodic
subtitles and initial "recap" from previous episodes were following the same
formula as well.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:30:31 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> 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?

No need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dROyIwJ8_wE&fmt=22

The less than spectacular CGI-Neo becomes more obvious roughly five  
minutes in, when the number of Smiths goes up.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:18:43 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>   Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?

Pretty much.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490479/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087225/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089110/



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.

  I just went to see the movie, and I cannot understand that opinion.
I don't see anything like that in the movie (on the contrary, the disabled
person explicitly states at one point something along the lines of he not
going to let his disability stop him no matter what other people say).

  Either I'm missing something, or those people are criticizing the movie
without having seen it. (I haven't seen any trailer of the movie, as I never
watch those. I wonder if they got the impression from one.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   I just went to see the movie, and I cannot understand that opinion.
> I don't see anything like that in the movie (on the contrary, the disabled
> person explicitly states at one point something along the lines of he not
> going to let his disability stop him no matter what other people say).
> 
>   Either I'm missing something, or those people are criticizing the movie
> without having seen it. (I haven't seen any trailer of the movie, as I never
> watch those. I wonder if they got the impression from one.)
> 
Been there, said that, rinse and repeat. lol But, yeah, they are jumping 
on it as a scape goat, based solely on one tiny bit of a trailer with a 
guy in a wheel chair, and some false extrapolation from it. Basically 
the same as you get every time in cases like this. There isn't much 
point attacking something you *know* is being intentionally offensive, 
apparently, but making up reasons to attack them because they *may be*, 
and you have a huge chip on your shoulder this week... that makes 
perfect sense, apparently.

-- 
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

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:43:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Either I'm missing something, or those people are criticizing the
>   movie
> without having seen it. (I haven't seen any trailer of the movie, as I
> never watch those. I wonder if they got the impression from one.)

Very possible.  I never claimed that they had seen it, since the opinion 
was based on the trailers. <shrug>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:10:13 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I can understand why it might piss some people off.
> 
> I also remember a deaf friend (well, email-friend :-) getting pissed off
> because she couldn't win a video game, because she couldn't hear where
> the bad-guys were. (It might have been Thief, where a big part is
> figuring out where the enemy is based on the sound of their walking,
> talking, etc.)

There was a very interesting Q&A on Youtube with Gabe Newmann (sp?) that 
he did with some deaf gamers - I found it very interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> No need.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dROyIwJ8_wE&fmt=22
> 
> The less than spectacular CGI-Neo becomes more obvious roughly five 
> minutes in, when the number of Smiths goes up.

That's the best YouTube video I think I've ever seen. Usually anything 
on YouTube is horrifyingly pixelated and garbled, even on the highest 
quality settings. Interesting...

Also, this video doesn't appear to match my memory. I wonder if the DVD 
that I watched is a slightly different edit or something...

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's the best YouTube video I think I've ever seen. Usually anything
> on YouTube is horrifyingly pixelated and garbled, even on the highest
> quality settings. Interesting...

How did you set the "quality settings" before?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> 
>> No need.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dROyIwJ8_wE&fmt=22
>>
>> The less than spectacular CGI-Neo becomes more obvious roughly five 
>> minutes in, when the number of Smiths goes up.
> 
> That's the best YouTube video I think I've ever seen.

That is good quality. Too bad it was choreographed by either Lionel 
Blair or the Tiller girls. ;)
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> That's the best YouTube video I think I've ever seen.
> 
> That is good quality. Too bad it was choreographed by either Lionel 
> Blair or the Tiller girls. ;)

Oh, hey, I was only referring to picture quality, not actual content. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> That's the best YouTube video I think I've ever seen.
>>
>> That is good quality. Too bad it was choreographed by either Lionel 
>> Blair or the Tiller girls. ;)
> 
> Oh, hey, I was only referring to picture quality, not actual content. ;-)
> 

I know but I was just taken aback at the puerility of the fighting.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message