They will come, Tiberious.
That's one. We're waiting on 3.
Printable View
They will come, Tiberious.
That's one. We're waiting on 3.
Aye, Cap'n.
In other news, I had an enlightening conversation with someone this morning. I'll call them Fred. I can't be bothered finding my chat logs at the moment, but here is the gist of it:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That, ladies, gentlemen and people who frequent Incident, is when I gave up on them.Quote:
Me: What browser do you use?
<Pause while I imagine them scratching their head, a big look of consternation on their face>
Fred: me
Me: You?
Fred: me*
(I kinda figure they mean Windows ME now)
Me: That's an OS. (I don't dare actually use acronyms with this person, but I think I can count on you lot)
Me: Like what program you use to browse the internet.
<Pauses>
Fred: Clear, I think.
Me: That's an ISP. I mean like Internet Explorer or something.
Fred: Oh. Umm...
Fred: Yeah, explorer.
About that last sentence. That, I think, is a perfect opportunity to go back into that idea I like so much, using brackets in text like they are meant to be used. For example, that sentence, to be made more clear to someone like me, would be phrased thusly:
[That, [ladies, gentlemen and [people who frequent Incident]], is when I gave up on them.]
I am using square brackets so I don't get confused between when I want to put something in brackets like that and when I actually mean to use them properly. The first and last brackets aren't really important, but bracketifying the list (heh, factorising) like that makes it a little clearer, I think. After all, it could have originally been interpreted like this:
[That, [[ladies, gentlemen and people] who frequent Incident], is when I gave up on them.]
That would imply that ladies and gentlemen aren't people, when I was trying to say that the people who visit here aren't ladies or gentlemen.
Another little case I saw was Special Sewing Machine Oil. This could be interpreted in a couple of different ways also.
[Special [Sewing Machine Oil]]
[[Special Sewing Machine] Oil]
I don't know whether the machine is special or the oil is.
Probably the most common case is the One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple People Eater.
[One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple [People Eater]]
[[One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple People] Eater]
This one could be done several ways. The eater could eat people with several different combinations of qualities, depending on how you think about it.
I have one other slightly related topic, but this is the most recent of my thoughts on these matters, and I would really appreciate any comments or help with this one. The phrase in question is as follows:
There is one thing I have to say to you.
To me the meaning of this phrase is a little ambivalent. By taking out the first two words of this sentence and jumbling the rest of them I got two different sentences which have different meanings to each other, but both could conveivably have the same meaning as the phrase above. These are:
I have to say one thing to you.
I have one thing to say to you.
In the first modification, "have to" is taken as "must", whereas in the second "have" is taken to mean "posess". Which of these two phrases do you think best represents the meaning of the first phrase? Do you think it has to do with the emphasis placed on words, or do you think it has more to do with whether you are the one saying or hearing it? I personally decided the other night that people hearing it interpret it differently than people saying it, but I can't remember which meaning each of them got, so I don't really trust my judgement on that one.
Oh, and now that I think of it (I'm getting tired of hearing myself here, so I can only guess as to how bad it must be for the people actually reading this), the phrase "All that glitters is not gold". One could take the traditional meaning of the phrase and say that it means there are some glittering things that arent' gold, or you could (still within the normal rules governing proper use of English) interpret it to mean that everything glittering isn't gold, so nothing that glitters is gold, so gold doesn't glitter.
For all of your perseverence for actually reading this rubbish, have a treat.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The weak will perish by themselves.Quote:
BLACKADDER:Yes, Percy. I don't want to be pedantic or anything, but the colour of gold is gold. That's why it's called gold. What you have discovered, if it has a name, is some 'green'.
PERCY: Oh, Edmund, can it be true? That I hold here in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
I think, Gerald, that all of this has long gone out of people's minds as something interesting to discuss. What you have just suggested is that the general population may actually be thinking about what they say before they say it. If everybody constructed sentences with as much care and precision as you, the world would be a happier place.
Of course, if the entire world left in their "mega-typos" as you tend to, I'd be mightily pissed off. Not that I'm not already.
I apologize in advance if I've already annoyed the hell out of you thinking about different ways in which this could have been interpreted.
Have you noticed, Gerald, that far too many people would consider your post as something "boring", and best left to their English teachers (whom they probably don't like anyway) to discuss. Thus too many people today simply say whatever the hell they feel like, with no regard whatsoever for grammatical correctness, attention to spelling (if the text is non-oral), or sentence structure. I will attempt an example:
"Eah, whatever, cunt."
The above sentence has no English meaning. At all. Yet it comes under the heading "New Zealand English".And apparently we all speak it.
Sadly, this is fact. many of us would be able to determine the meaning of this sentence were it put into a situation. I find this truth to be rather degrading. Is this knowledge (ie, the ability to translate horrible slang) useful? Should I revel in the fact that I possess a skill (understanding niggers) that others do not? Or should I consider myself tainted by the black community?
Onto other matters, consider the meaning of the phrase:
"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."
On second thoughts, I'm not going to bother with that. We all know what it means anyway, and it doesn't really fit the model as well as I thought it might. Ah well.
Since I now have nthing interesting to say, I'm going to say something.
Why do we call them square brackets? They aren't enen square. Even if you put to together, they don't really make a square []. They should be rectangular brackets, that would hold more truth.
Better yet, why not simply 'straight' brackets?
Better even still, I'll shut up now!
Yes, it is boring. However, I'm on Incident at the moment, and that says about everything I want to say.
While you bring up brackets, though, which sort would be most appropriate to use for what I was using them for before? Regular ones have regular uses, "square" brackets are used for modifications to quotations, and I believe the greater than / lesser than brackets are used to show that the text has been translated from another language. Well, at least in comics.
Outside of mathematics, do the curly ones have uses?
You didn't actually need to read any of that rubbish. Especially the stuff in the big post. I guess I was just putting it up there so it wouldn't take up room on my personal hard drive, and maybe someone would stumble onto Incident and be inspired to do _something_.
In the future I will clearly label anything of this nature. Big "Read me only if you have nothing better to do" signs, or something.
By the way, you tried to flame me for thinking about what I say, or hear, and then went on to say bad things about careless talking, and the understanding of it in context. I suppose "everything in moderation" would be the moral of the story here.
The other day I saw Matrix: Revolutions.
And my first inclination was to agree with Tiberious. It was awful! It was so bad! There was just shooting, going on forever (against the machines), a Dragonball Z fight (no lampposts, no running up walls, and rain everywhere), and the worst, most awkward lines I've ever seen in a film.
(Including not one, but two scenes where someone lies dying, mortally wounded, taking forever to deliver their final message.
I was expecting some of the revealing conversations that made me consider liking Reloaded. Or some of the questioning of reality that the first movie revolved around. I remember one sentence about the Architect, but there were no deep conversations in Revolutions.
There was character development, though: Smith lost his temper for the first time.
Anyway, I'm going to read about it until I find an article that convinces me it was good after all.
This should not be here. If someone could please delete it...
Thank you.
<font color="#f7f7f7" size="1">[ December 15, 2003 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Super Saiyan 2 Castor ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[angry with good reason]I think this is possibly the second (at least) time I've seen this. Can you please learn to spell my FUCKING NAME correctly?! PLEASE?![/angry with good reason]Quote:
Originally posted by Martin Scripts:
my first inclination was to agree with Tiberious.
Anyway...
I'm sorry I can't share your enthusiasm, Martin. To me, Revolutions will always be known as the movie that ruined The Matrix for me. The reason I see for this is that, post matrix reloaded the characters were faced with several difficulties that seemed (at the time) very difficult to solve.
Some of these were:
a)Neo being stuck in a coma
b)Smith outside the Matix
c)Lots of Smiths inside the Matrix
d)The twins, who kicked everyone's arse
e)Machines invading Zion.
(Please bear in mind that I don't know how to spell Zion, and if I spelled it wrong here then I expect to, and fully deserve to be, flamed as much as anyone can be bothered.)
Initially it appeared to me that these would be the main story points of the third movie. However, it turns out that each of these was solved in a fairly simple way.
a)Trinity sticks a gun in the Frenchman's face, and he lets Neo out.
b)Neo smacks off Smith's head with a golf club.
c)Despite there being countless Smiths, only one fights Neo.
d)For no apparent reason, the Twins did not feature in Revolutions (to my knowledge).
e)The machines attacked Zion in stupid ways which were easily defendable. ie, they used alot of sentinels instead of a nuke.
All of this made for a fairly dull movie, in my opinion.
Though it brings up an interesting point:
Do we call the trilogy "The Matrixes", or "The Matrices"?
Sorry about the name, Tibsy.
b)
Neo doesn't just "smack off Smiths' head". When I heard you guys talking about that I thought it was some trivial thing - Smith appeared, and Neo killed him.
It was nothing like that.Before "Neo smacks off Smith's head with a golf club" Smith actually does something that is really quite dramatic, that you guys seemed to forget. He fried Neo's friggin eyes. Burnt them out. Made him blind. Destroyed him.
And then Neo smacks off Smith's head, not with a golf club, but with the aid of an incredible power - a power far more impressive than the one he used to kill Smith the first time.
I didn't hear whining then - "The agents were coming for them, and then Neo kills Smith by leaping at him". It was a miricle, doi.
c)
They don't fight Neo, but those Smiths do actually do some other stuff. Like destroy the entire Matrix. And assimilate the Oracle. Incidentally, that's why only one fought Neo - He thought he had the power of seeing, and he saw himself standing over a defeated Neo (The eyes of the oracle can apparantly only be given, which might be why he screwed up so badly).
d)For no apparent reason, the Twins did not feature in Revolutions (to my knowledge).
That sucked. But I guess that explosion that blew them thousands of metres into the air somehow killed them. (or maybe the impact.
e)The machines attacked Zion in stupid ways which were easily defendable. ie, they used alot of sentinels instead of a nuke.
Nonsense. The human defenders didn't have a chance. The defence was a sham, the machines totally overwhelmed them.
Besides, a nuke would have destroyed the Zion complex. And then the machines would have to build it again...
"Neo doesn't just "smack off Smiths' head". When I heard you guys talking about that I thought it was some trivial thing - Smith appeared, and Neo killed him."
That is what happens. Smith could kill Neo easily, by pretending to be bane, and then knifing him. Instead, in typical cheesy-movie style, he does alot of talking. Ok, so he gets Neo's eyes. But he realises that our supposed hero can see him, gets scared, and waits for Neo to "smack off his head with a golf club".
I guess Smith thought it would be a better idea to talk alot instead of just winning, and I sort of understand why. But still, he could have won, and didn't. A bit like Hitler.
c)
"They don't fight Neo, but those Smiths do actually do some other stuff. Like destroy the entire Matrix. And assimilate the Oracle."
Ok, so yea, they do some stuff, and Smith did think he had already won. And he does beat Neo using only one Smith. But the fact is, I\we thought that killing loads of Smiths would pose a problem to Neo, when really they just stood around and watched.
d) The twins were possibly some of the best characters in any of the films. Probably because they weren't in it very much, and I was hoping to see more of them.
e)The machines attacked Zion in stupid ways which were easily defendable. ie, they used alot of sentinels instead of a nuke.
"Nonsense. The human defenders didn't have a chance. The defence was a sham, the machines totally overwhelmed them.
Besides, a nuke would have destroyed the Zion complex. And then the machines would have to build it again..."
This is rubbish, Martin.
1)The Sentinels flew around in patterns instead of going straight after the robot suits.
2)They attacked in waves, even though they should have been capable of sending in all of their force at once.
3)THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIONS!
They way the robots attacked them reminded me of a boss from Sonic the Hedgehog. They flew around in patterns, they hardly even went for the humans. Just the way Doctor Robotnik would buzz around in the air with a crazy machine, instead of attacking you directly.
Anyway, I have to go now. I may or may not post later. Incident seems to have gone into a sort of stasis. Or perhaps it's more of a Safe-Mode.
====================
PSSPS: We seem to have yet another Nora Fraser. I think that's a bit like Smith, soon we'll probably all be Nora Fraser...
And it will rain.
<font color="#f7f7f7" size="1">[ December 17, 2003 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Tiberius Frost. ]</font>
To me the biggest thing to ponder is this: EMPs were shown to be nice and effective against the machines. Why weren't there lots and lots of EMPs just piled up around Zion everywhere, mass produced or whatever? Why weren't ships equipped with missiles with EMPs attached to them? Why didn't they have remotely piloted craft (with EMPs, of course)? Stuff having Neo go to a machine city, the humans had the key to defeating the machines well before he came along.
Maybe they didn't have the resources or something to make lots of them, but I personally didn't get any decent hints of this from the films.