British dictionaries of English

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » British dictionaries of English

Page 7 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Author

Message

António Pedro Marques

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:01 am

Guest

Tak To wrote:

Quote:

APM.3> No. Magic is an add-on to the world it exists in. In the world
APM.3> chronicled by Tolkien there is not such a thing. [...]

This definition is problematic because it does not offer any way to
tell what is an "add-on" from what is not. Perhaps what you want
is to distinguish whether certain fictional beings, things or phenomena
are common enough in the world of the story (in general or in the
intermediate environment around the protagonist). In other words,
whether magic is an ordinary or extraordinary experience, given
that there is a large grey area in between.

No; and there isn't. You've been pointed the answer and where to see it
materialised.

Quote:

In any case, I think one can reasonably argue that is no magic in
Harry Potter's world either.

There, by your eloquent admission, you are able to argue the unarguable.
So what would be the point of arguing with you?
You and Mr. LSD are really similar in this regard.

Quote:

TT.2> In other words: not very exiting.

APM.3> No, exitment should be sought elsewhere.

I am glad you agree that excitement is not being offered.

Well, it tells a lot when you can't derive excitement from the LoTR and
yet can get gladness from something I haven't said.

The resources are there for you to enjoy. Whether you choose to or not
isn't our concern.

Anyway that may not be surprising: HP is children-ready, the LoTR is for
adults. An adult can appreciate the former, but a children won't know
how to properly appreciate the latter.

I'll take the chance to again commend _The Seven Citadels_.

And to point out that that quoting style is most annoying.
(LSD comes to mind again.)

Tak To

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:04 am

Guest

Tak To

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:57 pm

Guest

Jacques Guy wrote:

Quote:

But seriously, what gives with mao tai?
Why the outrageous prices? I saw a 500ml
bottle just yesterday at $70 (our local
dollars--you get 750ml of Laphroaig and
a handful of change for that amount).

And when meigueilu is only $9.99? (even
$8.50 if you shop around).

Personally, I am not a big fan of Chinese grain alcohols
so I can't give you any insight on their taste. I am a
congac/port guy myself; and I will take the Laphroaig
anytime over maotai.

Maotai is ore prestiguous and is produced only in the town
of Maotai in Guizhou province. Meiguilou is just a
liqueur made from distilled sorghum wine and rose petals
and is produced in many places.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

António Pedro Marques

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:50 pm

Guest

Tak To wrote:

Quote:

APM.3> No. Magic is an add-on to the world it exists in. In the world
APM.3> chronicled by Tolkien there is not such a thing. [...]

Tak To wrote:
TT.4> This definition is problematic because it does not offer any way to
TT.4> tell what is an "add-on" from what is not. Perhaps what you want
TT.4> is to distinguish whether certain fictional beings, things or
phenomena
TT.4> are common enough in the world of the story (in general or in the
TT.4> intermediate environment around the protagonist). In other words,
TT.4> whether magic is an ordinary or extraordinary experience, given
TT.4> that there is a large grey area in between.

APM.5> No; and there isn't. You've been pointed the answer and where to
see it
APM.5> materialised.

TT.4> In any case, I think one can reasonably argue that is no magic in
TT.4> Harry Potter's world either.

APM.5> There, by your eloquent admission, you are able to argue
APM.5> the unarguable. So what would be the point of arguing
APM.5> with you?

What unarguable? By what logic is this unarguable?

'I think one can reasonably argue that is no magic in Harry Potter's
world' is self-explanatory. Read it again.
But I suspect the matter is with 'unarguable'. Think again. What would
you consider as 'unarguable' (don't tell us)? And by which logic would
it be so? And why that logic? And define 'logic'. And the concepts
needed therefor. And 'definition'. And go reread Goedel's theorem.

Quote:

You simply _assert_ that that certain powers/beings are "add-on"'s
in the 7C but other powers/beings in LoTR are not. There is no

There may be an add-on in the LotR, Tom Bombadill, though I think it
needn't be so (sorry, haven't got the link to the essay). Look for
+bombadill +Arda +spirit.

I don't think there are 'add-on beings' in HP or _The Seven Citadels_.

Quote:

explanation whatsoever; especially none as to how this peculiar
definition (of "add-on") of yours can be applied to the case of HP.
Thus, even if one accepted your assertion in the case of LoTR and 7C
(and I don't) one can still draw a different conclusion about HP.

'Add-on' needs no definition, and especially not the one you offered
since you refuse to understand what it means. What you 'accept' or not
is really irrelevant; in LotR there's no magic, in _The Seven Citadels_
there's both and in HP (in a way) there is mostly magic. Go give some
thought to the nature of the three universes, work out their structural
differences and there you have why magic is and add-on.

Quote:

Now, is it that everyone who disagrees with you is "arguing the
unarguable"?

Not always. For the record, you're not even disagreeing with me. You're
refusing to derive any betterment from the perspective I presented, that
does not amount to 'disagreeing'. It amounts to wearing one's patience.

Quote:

APM.5> You and Mr. LSD are really similar in this regard.

LSD explains his reasoning clearly, so at least one can see where his
logical flaw (if any) lies. You simply make assertions and expect
everyone to agree with you.

Mr. LSD shares you with that he will argue anyhting; he'd argue the
Earth is flat should you assert it's not and simply refuse any argument
you'd put forth, not unoften by demanding you define 'Earth', 'to be',
'not flat' and so on.

I've magnanimously given you a clue to better understand fantasy
fiction. Instead of taking it for your benefit, you choose to try to
bite the hand that feeds you. That's not my problem.

Quote:

TT.2> In other words: not very exiting.

APM.3> No, exitment should be sought elsewhere.

TT.4> I am glad you agree that excitement is not being offered.

APM.5> Well, it tells a lot when you can't derive excitement from
APM.5> the LoTR [...]

And where have I said that?

'not very exiting' (we can now assume it a typo), 'excitement is not
being offered' (check the semantics of 'agree')...

Quote:

APM.5> and yet can get gladness from something I haven't said.
APM.5> The resources are there for you to enjoy. Whether you
APM.5> choose to or not isn't our concern.

If excitement is offered, why shouldn't people sought it?
Is this one of your "because I say so" thing again?

(I can't even be bothered to try to understand what you're asking here.)

Quote:

And who are these people (besides you) implied by "our"? When
did they elect you their spokes person?

Why, we did.

Quote:

APM.5> Anyway that may not be surprising: HP is children-ready,
APM.5> the LoTR is for adults. An adult can appreciate the former,
APM.5> but a children won't know how to properly appreciate the
APM.5> latter.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Another of your assertion without explanation.
Frankly, I am not interested (in your assertions).

You've pretty much shown by act and word that knowlege(tm) isn't really
your cup of tea. No need to be so explicit.

I think a lot of children out there will be put down when they know
there's someone somewhere who thinks HP is not children-ready. But hey!,
they also thinks the LotR is - and should it not be, all is not lost,
since they believes children can properly appreciate non-children-ready
material.

Or at least so they implies, but they's also busy begging for
definitions and proofs for every clause known to Muggle, so maybe they
thinks they's not implying anything. Nor otherwise. Much to the contrary.

Quote:

APM.5> And to point out that that quoting style is most annoying.
APM.5> (LSD comes to mind again.)

Appreciating logical clarity is for adults; children just like to
shout.

Huh?
That quoting style is most annoying. Even people who need side-wheels in
their bike can follow a conversation without such clutter. But judging
by your above mumblings about 'explanations' for this and that, maybe
you really need those. Or maybe you think you do but they're doing you harm.

Mr. LSD likes them too.

But Mr. LSD has more than displayed his virtues over time, which more
than do make up for his peculiarities.

So if you have anything interesting to say (though I find it difficult
if you stay OT), now's the time. Else why bother?

António Pedro Marques

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:21 pm

Guest

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Quote:

Does it? In what sense? I wasn't under that impression.
I think http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm can be considered
autoritarive.

Quote:

point, and mangling the natures of at least two significant
characters).

Who?

Quote:

Omitting Tom Bombadil, who Shippey argues is the most key, most
enigmatic character (and who fascinated Tolkien throughout his life).

That I think is a key flaw. I'll explain.

The movie must be somewhat self-contained. That was both very difficult
and not completely fulfilled. In fact, a bit disappointing. But the
point is that since things must be omitted, some characters could have
been, and the film just has too many characters. And puts them doing
unlikely things (Galadriel, Elrond, Faramir...). And it largely omits
the depth of personality of others (Denethor). And it spends lots of
time with out-of-context pointless stuff while discarding things that
could simply enter the scene and leave with no explanation (Bombadil).
That leaves a sensation that what changes were made were not well made,
and many were unnecessary - in fact prejudicial. I don't see what
cinematic need would cut Bombadil and leave Galadriel, may Galadriel be
the noblest of elves left on ME but the film should not really be
concerned about that. Another key flaw is to give away that Aragorn is
to be the rightful king of Gondor (and Arnor and in fact any Light Elves
who should be left on ME).

But what that hurts is the film - not the book. So, at the end of the
day, the film is good with flaws (I think TT is the best) and that's it.

Geoff

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:04 pm

Guest

Tak To wrote:

Quote:

Jacques Guy wrote:

But seriously, what gives with mao tai? Why the outrageous prices? I
saw a 500ml
bottle just yesterday at $70 (our local
dollars--you get 750ml of Laphroaig and
a handful of change for that amount).

And when meigueilu is only $9.99? (even
$8.50 if you shop around).

Personally, I am not a big fan of Chinese grain alcohols
so I can't give you any insight on their taste. I am a
congac/port guy myself; and I will take the Laphroaig
anytime over maotai.

Maotai is ore prestiguous and is produced only in the town
of Maotai in Guizhou province. Meiguilou is just a
liqueur made from distilled sorghum wine and rose petals
and is produced in many places.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

There is Maotai and then there is Maotai - some is aged and

smoother, some is clear rot gut. I can recall on business
trips to China in the early 1980s waking up in the middle of
the night after a long banquet (me paying of course) with
the "Maotai sweats" - my perspiration still smelled like the
stuff hours later. Kind of an analogy with asparagus and
another bodily fluid....

Brian M. Scott

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:57 pm

Guest

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:21:27 +0000 António Pedro Marques
<m.ap@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:40142830$0$8839$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> in sci.lang:

I had written:

Quote:

It didn't do violence to my conception of the story (as far
as it went). I've know enough about the current version to
know that it does in some important respects (e.g., ending
prematurely and therefore effectively missing the whole

Does it? In what sense? I wasn't under that impression.
I think http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm can be considered
autoritarive.

It's irrelevant, since I'm giving an opinion.

Quote:

point, and mangling the natures of at least two significant
characters).

Who?

Faramir and Aragorn, and I'd probably add Galadriel and
Arwen as well.

[...]

Brian

Tak To

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:53 am

Guest

António Pedro Marques wrote:
APM.3> No. Magic is an add-on to the world it exists in. In the world
APM.3> chronicled by Tolkien there is not such a thing. [...]

Tak To wrote:
TT.4> This definition is problematic because it does not offer any way to
TT.4> tell what is an "add-on" from what is not. Perhaps what you want
TT.4> is to distinguish whether certain fictional beings, things or phenomena
TT.4> are common enough in the world of the story (in general or in the
TT.4> intermediate environment around the protagonist). In other words,
TT.4> whether magic is an ordinary or extraordinary experience, given
TT.4> that there is a large grey area in between.

APM.5> No; and there isn't. You've been pointed the answer and where to see it
APM.5> materialised.

TT.4> In any case, I think one can reasonably argue that is no magic in
TT.4> Harry Potter's world either.

APM.5> There, by your eloquent admission, you are able to argue
APM.5> the unarguable. So what would be the point of arguing
APM.5> with you?

TT.6> What unarguable? By what logic is this unarguable?

APM.7> 'I think one can reasonably argue that is no magic in Harry Potter's
APM.7> world' is self-explanatory. Read it again.

Yeah, yeah. One of your famous assertions again.

APM.7> But I suspect the matter is with 'unarguable'. Think again. What would
APM.7> you consider as 'unarguable' (don't tell us)? And by which logic would
APM.7> it be so? And why that logic? And define 'logic'. And the concepts
APM.7> needed therefor. And 'definition'. And go reread Goedel's theorem.

What does it matter what I think is arguable or unarguable? It was
your claim, and I simply asked you to explain it.

Goedel's Theorem? Care to explain its relevance in the current
context?

----- -----

TT.6> You simply _assert_ that that certain powers/beings are "add-on"'s
TT.6> in the 7C but other powers/beings in LoTR are not. There is no
TT.6> explanation whatsoever [...]

APM.7> There may be an add-on in the LotR, Tom Bombadill, though I
APM.7> think it needn't be so (sorry, haven't got the link to the
APM.7> essay). Look for +bombadill +Arda +spirit.

Irrelevant; and yet another assertion without explanation.

APM.7> I don't think there are 'add-on beings' in HP or _The Seven Citadels_.

Ditto.

TT.6> [There is no explanation;] especially none as to how this peculiar
TT.6> definition (of "add-on") of yours can be applied to the case of HP.
TT.6> Thus, even if one accepted your assertion in the case of LoTR and 7C
TT.6> (and I don't) one can still draw a different conclusion about HP.

APM.7> 'Add-on' needs no definition,

Yes it does so, since
(1) you make a big deal with add-on vs not add-on; and
(2) what is there (in "the world") before any add-on's is not
defined.

APM.7> and especially not the one you offered

I offered no definition of "add on". I suggested switching from talking in
terms of "add-on vs not add-on" to in terms of "extraordinary vs
ordindary experience (with a large gray area in between)".

APM.7> since you refuse to understand what it means.

This is rich. I refuse to understand what I write?? What
does this accusation mean??

APM.7> What you 'accept' or not is really irrelevant;

It is obvious that whether you have presented a sufficiently clear
case is irrelevant to you.

APM.7> in LotR
APM.7> there's no magic, in _The Seven Citadels_ there's both
APM.7> and in HP (in a way) there is mostly magic.

More and more assertions,

APM.7> Go give some thought to the nature of the three universes,
APM.7> work out their structural differences and there you have
APM.7> why magic is and add-on.

with homework assignments.

----- -----

TT.6> Now, is it that everyone who disagrees with you is "arguing the
TT.6> unarguable"?

APM.7> Not always. For the record, you're not even disagreeing with
APM.7> me.

You have forgotten? I disagreed with your assertion that "there is
no magic in ME". However, that disagreement could very well be
merely a difference in the usage of the word "magic"(*). Thus I asked
you to clarify. You in turned brought in another under-defined term
"add on".

(*) And I think my usage is more in line with the dictionary
definition of the word.

APM.7> You're refusing to derive any betterment from the perspective
APM.7> I presented, that does not amount to 'disagreeing'.

You might very well have a perspective, but not one that has been
presented with sufficient clarity.

APM.7> It amounts to wearing one's patience.

Sure, if people don't understand you, it must be their fault.

Gee, for the a mere fraction of the effort that you have
invested in calling me "arguing the unarguable", "refuse to
understand", "refuse to derive betterment", "have lousy quote
style", etc, etc, you could have written a passage or two in
the line of, say, "The power of invisibility in LotR is not an
add-on while the one in HP is because..." So why didn't you?

I am not so cynical (yet) as to think that you do not understand
it yourself. However, all this posturing without substance is
making me wonder.

----- -----

APM.5> You and Mr. LSD are really similar in this regard.

TT.6> LSD explains his reasoning clearly, so at least one can see
TT.6> where his logical flaw (if any) lies. You simply make
TT.6> assertions and expect everyone to agree with you.

APM.7> Mr. LSD shares you with that he will argue anyhting;
APM.7> he'd argue the Earth is flat should you assert it's not
APM.7> and simply refuse any argument you'd put forth, not
APM.7> unoften by demanding you define 'Earth', 'to be', 'not flat'
APM.7> and so on.

Let me just say that I disagree with you on your assessment of LSD.
He can take it up with you if he wants.

----- -----

APM.7> I've magnanimously given you a clue to better understand
APM.7> fantasy fiction. Instead of taking it for your benefit,
APM.7> you choose to try to bite the hand that feeds you. That's
APM.7> not my problem.

I think you have a problem if you keep treating other people
like students who is duty bound to worship every word your
professorship would deliver.

----- -----

APM.1> In the case of that ring,
APM.1> its power was that Sauron's vital strength was bound to it. That was no
APM.1> magic, but simply what a spirit like Sauron could do. Sauron (just like
APM.1> Gandalf, Saruman or even Shelob) wasn't bound to a body but simply 'took
APM.1> shape' in its manifestation to the world. Sauron's ability to control
APM.1> that was greatly diminished by his evilness (equate with bound material
APM.1> things and hence matter).

TT.2> In other words: not very exiting.

APM.3> No, exitment should be sought elsewhere.

TT.4> I am glad you agree that excitement is not being offered.

APM.5> Well, it tells a lot when you can't derive excitement from
APM.5> the LoTR [...]

TT.6> And where have I said that?

APM.7> 'not very exiting' (we can now assume it a typo), 'excitement is
APM.7> not being offered' (check the semantics of 'agree')...

Check the context that you have omitted and I have re-inserted
(the above paragraph marked with "APM.1"). I was referring to
the power of the ring. In other words, the _magic_ in LotR is
not very exciting.

As to the entire book, I said that it is _less exciting_ than HP.

(Example A, see next to last section.)

----- -----

TT.6> And who are these people (besides you) implied by "our"? When
TT.6> did they elect you their spokes person?

APM.7> Why, we did.

Let's see: a "who are" and a "when" question answered by "we did".

(Example B, see next to last section.)

----- -----

APM.5> Anyway that may not be surprising: HP is children-ready,
APM.5> the LoTR is for adults. An adult can appreciate the former,
APM.5> but a children won't know how to properly appreciate the
APM.5> latter.

TT.6> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Another of your assertion without explanation.
TT.6> Frankly, I am not interested (in your assertions).

APM.7> You've pretty much shown by act and word that knowlege(tm) isn't
APM.7> really your cup of tea. No need to be so explicit.

You've pretty much shown by act and word that you have confused
mere opinions of yours with facts. No need to be so explicit.

----- -----

APM.7> I think a lot of children out there will be put down when they know
APM.7> there's someone somewhere who thinks HP is not children-ready. But hey!,
APM.7> they also thinks the LotR is - and should it not be, all is not lost,
APM.7> since they believes children can properly appreciate non-children-ready
APM.7> material. Or at least so they implies, but they's also busy begging for
APM.7> definitions and proofs for every clause known to Muggle,
APM.7> so maybe they thinks they's not implying anything.
APM.7> Nor otherwise. Much to the contrary.

The best I can get out of this is:

"Children are implying that they belieive can properly appreciate
non-children-ready literature; but they think they are not implying."

and even that does not make too much sense to me.

----- -----

APM.5> And to point out that that quoting style is most annoying.
APM.5> (LSD comes to mind again.)

TT.6> Appreciating logical clarity is for adults; children just like to
TT.6> shout.

APM.7> Huh?
APM.7> That quoting style is most annoying. Even people who need side-wheels
APM.7> in their bike can follow a conversation without such clutter.

Maybe you think you can follow the numerous threads within a conversion
and remember the context of each one of them without any reminder -- but
you cannot. I have marked two examples (A and B) along the way. In
example A you forgot about your own previous posting and thus misplaced
the context entirely. In example B you can't even give a proper retort
when writing right under my questions.

----- -----

APM.7> So if you have anything interesting to say (though I find it difficult
APM.7> if you stay OT), now's the time. Else why bother?

I see you are under the dellusion that I give a hoot what is interesting
nor not interesting to you.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

Peter T. Daniels

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:38 am

Guest

Brian M. Scott wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:21:27 +0000 António Pedro Marques
m.ap@sapo.pt> wrote in
news:40142830$0$8839$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> in sci.lang:

I had written:

It didn't do violence to my conception of the story (as far
as it went). I've know enough about the current version to
know that it does in some important respects (e.g., ending
prematurely and therefore effectively missing the whole

Does it? In what sense? I wasn't under that impression.
I think http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm can be considered
autoritarive.

It's irrelevant, since I'm giving an opinion.

point, and mangling the natures of at least two significant
characters).

Who?

Faramir and Aragorn, and I'd probably add Galadriel and
Arwen as well.

The last because you supposedly can't make a movie essentially without
women. (They think.) (Anyone remember *Twelve Angry Men*?)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

Mikael Thompson

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:29 pm

Guest

Brian M. Scott wrote:

Quote:

*Definitely* Faramir. The scenes with him and the hobbits were a
grotesque butchery. I noticed, by the way, that the people on the Arda
encyclopedia made exactly the same point:

"The story of Frodo's meeting with Faramir has been radically modified.
Tolkien's Faramir is one of the most insightful and compassionate
characters in the book, intelligent enough to divine the importance of
Frodo's mission, and to let him continue without hindrance. In the
movie, he's lost all these qualities - deciding to take the Ring to
Minas Tirith, he drags Frodo and Sam some forty miles out of their way,
allowing a Nazgûl to discover the Ring in Osgiliath, before he realises
he's made a mistake.

"In fact, the idea of the Ring being revealed to one of the Ringwraiths
in Osgiliath threatens to undermine the entire plot..."

Mikael Thompson

António Pedro Marques

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:46 pm

Guest

Brian M. Scott wrote:

Quote:

It didn't do violence to my conception of the story (as far as
it went). I've know enough about the current version to know
that it does in some important respects (e.g., ending

Does it? In what sense? I wasn't under that impression. I think
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm can be considered
autoritarive.

It's irrelevant, since I'm giving an opinion.

Why, and may we not be interested in its foundations? I've now seen it's
_The Scouring of the Shire_. That's just a good example of the
interesting things that might have been included with no need of further
complexity. It would need some movie time, though...

Quote:

point, and mangling the natures of at least two significant
characters).
(...)
Faramir and Aragorn, and I'd probably add Galadriel and Arwen as
well.

And I beg for pennance for having read 'mingling' or there would have
been no question.

Page 7 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:19 pm Science Forum Index