Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   There are two things that irritate me quite a lot when people write
>>> prose, especially online:
> 
>> BTW, "fake" doesn't mean what you think it means. :-) A machine-assisted 
>> speed-run is still "fake" even if everyone knows it's speed-assisted, just 
>> like Star Wars had fake space ships.
> 
>   A movie is not a "fake documentary" because a movie is not intended to
> pass for one. It's made clear that it's fiction, and hence it's completely
> genuine fiction. Nobody calls a movie "a fake documentary".
> 
>   A documentary which fabricates events and claims them to have truly
> happened, with the intention of fooling people, is fake.

A movie isn't a fake documentary because something like Inception doesn't 
look like a documentary.  "This Is Spinal Tap" is indeed a "fake 
documentary", even tho nobody thinks it's real.

>   Likewise a tool-assisted speedrun is not a "fake speedrun" because it's
> not made for the purpose of fooling people into thinking that it's one.
> Calling it a fake makes as much sense as calling a movie a fake documentary.

I'm just saying, if someone came up and said "Is that real?"  I'd say "No, 
it's fake."  Exactly like if someone came up to me while I was watching Star 
Wars and said "Are those real space ships?" I'd say "No, they're fake", even 
tho nobody thinks Star Wars is real.

A movie fails to be a "fake documentary" only to the extent that it doesn't 
look like a documentary.  Being "fake" isn't what gives it negative 
connotations. If you call something "bogus" or "counterfeit", then you're 
giving negative connotations. But, as a native speaker of American english, 
I've never heard "fake" to mean purely "I was fooled by it". There are many 
"fake" things that don't pretend to be real. People put fake skeletons and 
headstones on their lawn during halloween. Pretending to throw the 
football[1] and not doing so is a "pump fake" with no negative connotations 
and indeed with kudos to the quarterback. Spock's star trek ears were real 
makeup but fake ears, and nobody thought vulcans were real.

I'm just saying that "fake" doesn't always carry a negative connotation. 
Saying a speed run is "fake" doesn't imply the runner was trying to fool you 
into thinking he is that good at the game, any more than saying Spock's ears 
are fake means Nimoy was trying to fool you into believing vulcans are real.

Just so's ya know. :-)




[1] Let's not go there.
-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I'm just saying, if someone came up and said "Is that real?"  I'd say 
> "No, it's fake."  Exactly like if someone came up to me while I was 
> watching Star Wars and said "Are those real space ships?" I'd say "No, 
> they're fake", even tho nobody thinks Star Wars is real.

Oh, and interestingly enough, imagine a version of Alien where in order to 
escape, they built a simulacrum of an alien out of tofu and propped it up in 
the corridor. Then you'd say the live alien is "real," the tofu is fake, 
even tho both are unreal and everyone involves knows that both are movie props.

And the robot "isn't a real person", even tho the actor is a real person, 
and you're supposed to believe the robot is a real person. So it all gets 
rather confusing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > There are two things that irritate me quite a lot when people write
> > prose, especially online:
> >
> >   1: When, in the middle of a longer sentence, they start writing something
> > in parentheses, but never close them. Sometimes it's confusing and hard to
> > guess where the thing in parentheses is supposed to end.
> >
> >   2: When people write something like: "Two points: Firstly, ..." but then
> > they never write "Secondly, ..." or anything like that anywhere in the text.
> > Thus it's hard to see what the *other* point they are making is.
> >
> >   Yeah, minor things, but...
> >
> > --
> >                                                           - Warp
>
> FIVE THINGS THAT IRRITATE ME:
>
> 1. EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION
>
> B. PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT A PREPOSITION IS NOT WHAT ONE SHOULD END A SENTENCE
> WITH.
>
> III. NIT-PICKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S WRITING STYLE
>
> FOUR: PEOPLE NOT FINISHING WHAT THEY START.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:55:29 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:51:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Warp wrote:
>>> It's ok to end a sentence in a preposition,
>>
>> Even the guy who invented the rule said it was OK as long as the
>> preposition was necessary. The actual rule is to not add an extra
>> preposition that doesn't change the sentence.
>>
>> I.e., "Where is the library at?" can be just as easily written "Where is
>> the library?"
>>
>> On the other hand, "Who did you give it to?" is fine, because you can't
>> say "Who did you give it?"
>
> Except that it should be "Whom", IIRC. ;-)

Or to be precise "To whom did you give it?" :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

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

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Or to be precise "To whom did you give it?" :-)

Except that's a contortion to avoid putting a preposition at the end of a 
sentence that isn't problematic to put at the end of a sentence.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

On 9/1/2010 8:30 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Or to be precise "To whom did you give it?" :-)
>
> Except that's a contortion to avoid putting a preposition at the end of
> a sentence that isn't problematic to put at the end of a sentence.
>
You do know that the rule in question was one proposed by one man, for 
no good reason, and for a similar lack of logic or purpose, then 
adopted? It was never part of the original English until then, and makes 
about as much sense as reverting to pre-Middle English, where half the 
words we use would require extra vowels, or consonants to spell them, or 
worse, Middle English, where there was a trend to simply remove as many 
vowels are possible.

In short, its a stupid rule, and there is one single fool to blame for 
proposing it at all.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/1/2010 8:30 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>> Or to be precise "To whom did you give it?" :-)
>>
>> Except that's a contortion to avoid putting a preposition at the end of
>> a sentence that isn't problematic to put at the end of a sentence.
>>
> You do know that the rule in question was one proposed by one man, for 
> no good reason,

Well, I think the original rule makes sense, just like it makes sense to say 
"don't use more words than you need."  But it's like the people who spell it 
"recieve" because they think "I before E" - if you leave off the details, 
the rule becomes nonsensical.

> In short, its a stupid rule, and there is one single fool to blame for 
> proposing it at all.

It's definitely not something up with which we should put!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:30:04 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake thusly:

> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Or to be precise "To whom did you give it?" :-)
>
> Except that's a contortion to avoid putting a preposition at the end of  
> a sentence that isn't problematic to put at the end of a sentence.

Hence the smiley.

-- 
Phil Cook

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> preposition was necessary. The actual rule is to not add an extra
> preposition that doesn't change the sentence.


Always remember to never split the infinitive.

Post a reply to this message

Another irritating thing, when giving tech support:

me> what version are you running?
them> latest

I either reply with "that's not a version" or with "no wonder you have 
trouble, the 'latest' code isn't anywhere near ready for use yet".

Post a reply to this message