Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: kimballistic on January 03, 2019, 09:53:49 pm
-
From Midnight Rainbow submissions (https://luminous-landscape.com/midnight-rainbow-submissions/):
At mid-summer sunset in Iceland is very late and last a long time.
The glacial iceberg-filled lake at Jokulsarlon is well know, [...]
And then...
Be it professional, whimsical or indispensably personal in subject matter, your submitted contribution of a meaning-filled photograph will be curated and published by us if chosen, showcased with your take of its creation and how you were affected by it’s taking and making.
Yikes.
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. (http://www.jlakes.org/ch/web/The-elements-of-style.pdf)
-
Both text and photography editors, to support the new crew. :)
-
It's been a quite some time since I read The Elements of Style. Thanks so much for the link, and the trip back to my freshman year in college. (Note that it's is a contraction of "it has" and not the possessive form ;D)
-
It's been a quite some time since I read The Elements of Style. Thanks so much for the link, and the trip back to my freshman year in college. (Note that it's is a contraction of "it has" and not the possessive form ;D)
Their, their, downt get upsett!
;-)
-
The misused "it's" is indeed a possessive since it refers to the photograph's making....
But isn't it merely trite to suggest that articles may benefit from being proofread by someone other than their author?
-
The misused "it's" is indeed a possessive since it refers to the photograph's making....
But isn't it merely trite to suggest that articles may benefit from being proofread by someone other than their author?
Sometimes it helps to state the obvious when a person can't see the obvious. I'd prefer a professional LuLa to an amateur one.
-
... Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. (http://www.jlakes.org/ch/web/The-elements-of-style.pdf)
Hmmm... tell that to James Joyce, for instance ;)
The Longest Sentence in Literature
Many people attribute the longest sentence in literature to Victor Hugo. The claim is that a sentence in Les Miserables, 823 words long, earns that title.
The source most often given for this, if a source is given, is Timothy Fullerton's Triviata: A Compendium of Useless Information, published in 1975.
Unfortunately, Fullerton was in error. At best, it is the longest sentence in French literature, though I can't confirm that.* Traditionally, the longest sentence in English Literature has been said to be a sentence in Ullyses by James Joyce, which clocks in at 4,391 words. Past editions of The Guinness Book of World Records have listed this record.
However, Joyce's record has recently been surpassed. Jonathan Coe's The Rotters Club, published in 2001, contains a sentence with 13,955 words. I believe he currently holds the record in "English Literature."
However hold on to your seats...
There is also, apparently, a Polish novel, Gates of Paradise, with a 40,000 word sentence. I have been unable so far to find absolute confirmation on an author. Bramy Raju, written by Jerzy Andrzejewski, and published in 1960, translates as Gates of Paradise, but it has been described as a novella. And while there is no absolute definition of that term, novellas are usually shorter than 40,000 words.
Finally, there is a Czech novel that consists of one long sentence -- Dancing Lessons for the Advanced in Age by Bohumil Hrabal. It is this novel that Coe has said inspired his 13,955 word sentence. Hrabal's 'novel sentence' is 128 pages long, though I have been unable to find an exact word count. It most likely takes the award for longest sentence. Even if it doesn't, it dwarfs Hugo's significantly.
-- John Newmark - Nov, 2003
*Aug 2004 -- I have received an email stating that Sodom et Gomorrhe, Volume 4 of À la Recherche du temps perdu by Marcel Proust contains a sentence that's 847 words long in the original French. If this is true, Hugo doesn't hold the French literature record.
Source: http://www.gavroche.org/vhugo/sentence.shtml
My point being that sentence length might be a matter of style. Grammatical errors, however...
-
I inevitably make a spelling or grammar mistake when I comment on spelling or grammar 8) but I think it is certainly reasonable to ask that things do go through an editor. To be fair, it wasn't always entirely clear whether Michael or Kevin (& crew) went through an editor either, but it is certainly good to sneak the request in during a change. I think there's a trend to not comment on grammar and style because "everyone has their unique voice" (or some such). Plus it's a big world and people come at speaking multiple languages in different ways. But to me, nicely written text is the same as a great image. It doesn't have to be "formal text" to be nicely written, and it doesn't have to quiet someone's "unique voice". It does show that someone spent time on the words and how they go together and I think that's reasonable for a professional site. Even dpreview uses editors :).
-
Marcel Proust, one of my favorite authors, is also famous for very long sentences. I don't know if he holds the record or not (I'm reading, not counting!) but he certainly deserves it:
https://nathanbrixius.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/the-five-longest-proust-sentences/ (https://nathanbrixius.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/the-five-longest-proust-sentences/)
-
It doesn't have to be "formal text" to be nicely written, and it doesn't have to quiet someone's "unique voice". It does show that someone spent time on the words and how they go together and I think that's reasonable for a professional site.
Total agreement, Ray. Especially when you're paying to read. Nothing destroys credibility quicker than spelling and grammar errors. They're the "smocking gun".
-
Hmmm... tell that to James Joyce, for instance ;)
In a lounge at an unnamed airport, "Paging Ms. Bloom, Ms. Molly Bloom please go to the nearest courtesy phone for an important message." The aforementioned Ms. Bloom picks up the receiver to be greeted by a deeply masculine voice, "yes I said yes I will Yes."
-
Oh, for Christ's sake!
-
Thanks all for the typo corrections & grammar suggestions, including the general desire to see nothing short of well proofed publishings. As for the broader discussion on writing rules and style- I’ll have to vigourously compose a very (very) long and flowery treaty on that, and offer it up for the ravashing as a thread itself in order to do justice for the topic, me thinks. 😉😇
-
Thanks all for the typo corrections & grammar suggestions, including the general desire to see nothing short of well proofed publishings. As for the broader discussion on writing rules and style- I’ll have to vigourously compose a very (very) long and flowery treaty on that, and offer it up for the ravashing as a thread itself in order to do justice for the topic, me thinks. 😉😇
A treatise might better serve your purpose.
-
‘Twas no mistake - I meant the cutest sort of devourable 🍜
-
Thanks all for the typo corrections & grammar suggestions, including the general desire to see nothing short of well proofed publishings. As for the broader discussion on writing rules and style- I’ll have to vigourously compose a very (very) long and flowery treaty on that, and offer it up for the ravashing as a thread itself in order to do justice for the topic, me thinks. 😉😇
Ravishing! ;-)
-
This site is finished. RIP!
-
Try the Grammarly app for browsers. It's pretty good.
-
to vigourously compose
Spelling. Split infinitive.
:-)
-
Oh, for Christ's sake!
Best, most concise comment on this matter yet!
Were I rich, owned this site, by now I'd have simply disconnected; who needs this shit? Were I rich, I doubt I'd be spending time on the Internet at all. Were but that I were rich!
;-)
Rob
-
Were I rich, owned this site, by now I'd have simply disconnected; who needs this shit?
Yup
-
A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. (http://www.jlakes.org/ch/web/The-elements-of-style.pdf)
That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.
Jeremy
-
That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.
Jeremy
Those glass houses are everywhere!
;-)
-
That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.
Jeremy
The grammar... :)
-
And in any case the grammar seems fine - compare "a man should have a dog, a woman a cat".
-
And in any case the grammar seems fine - compare "a man should have a dog, a woman a cat".
I think he's referring to the equivalence. It currently says "A, B like C and D" whereas you might expect either of "A, B like C, D" or "A and B like C and D".
They actually did a study somewhere which concluded that people who have a tendency of correcting someone's spelling (as opposed to concentrating on content) are less amicable personalities. No, I kid you not.
Another, more recent, study claimed that some 6% of my country fellowmen did not use internutz in the past year, and half of them don't even have internutz. I didn't know what to make of it, until Rob's remark! It likely corresponds to the 6% millionaires, who simply haven't the time or inclination for this hollowness.
-
There is nothing ungrammatical about splitting infinitives, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Shakespeare and many others did (do) it all the time. These "rules" might be remnants of some style guide or other, or they may have been arbitrary school "marm" rules dreamed up to instil discipline in (or inflict maximum misery on) children.
The only "rule" about splitting infinitives is that you should place the adverb to properly convey your meaning.
"To go boldly where no man has gone before..." doesn't sound right. :)
There is a very useful style guide "Words into Type", Prentice-Hall. I have the 3rd edition but there are probably more recent editions by now.
Many of the things that we consider "rules" or mistakes are conventions of the day. There are real rules of grammar, of course, but many of the things that people complain about are just things that they are used to or were taught. The language has never been static and isn't now.
A good example appeared in these pages a few weeks ago. I remember because I looked it up. There was a complaint from one contributor about the use of the phrase "begs the question". The phrase has a specific cultural meaning that is different than the actual denotation of the words in the phrase. Someone used the phrase in a way that was different than its current common meaning. Doing so was not a grammatical error, it was just a misunderstanding of the cultural meaning of the phrase. In 20 years's time, that specific cultural idea may die away completely. This is not unlike using "bad" when we mean "good" or the ironic "I could care less" instead of the more accurate "I couldn't care less". Proper usage may indicate hipness but it doesn't imply that you know grammar.
Many "rules" are contextual. It is silly to insist on using the style of scientific or legal journals in a photography web forum. The articles on the site should be held to a slightly higher standard than the forums, I'd say, but some of the comments I've read lately seem over the top to me. It is just a few errors not the end of civilization.
One simple and effective way to avoid some of those errors though is to simply have someone other than the author read/proof the text before publication. This isn't a daily newspaper, there is no need to rush to deadline.
-
One simple and effective way to avoid some of those errors though is to simply have someone other than the author read/proof the text before publication.
Josh and Irene ought to be able to sort that between themselves for their own articles. When third parties submit material for publication, Josh will read it and should be able to clean up any glitches.
-
To be quite fair, the previous management did not copy-edit submitted material. I have a typo or two that I know of preserved for posterity in articles on the front.
For those who declare the discussion silly, I remind you that you are already sold one way or the other, and are therefore irrelevant. Commuter train systems are optimized for the regular rider, sometimes to the fury of the new or occasional rider. Web sites operated the same way die.
-
To be quite fair, the previous management did not copy-edit submitted material. I have a typo or two that I know of preserved for posterity in articles on the front.
For those who declare the discussion silly, I remind you that you are already sold one way or the other, and are therefore irrelevant. Commuter train systems are optimized for the regular rider, sometimes to the fury of the new or occasional rider. Web sites operated the same way die.
I remain convinced that autonomous vehicles should include an "I feel lucky" button...
-
If I were Josh, I would tap a few people on this thread to volunteer for part-time editor's duty.
-
There is nothing ungrammatical about splitting infinitives, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Shakespeare and many others did (do) it all the time. These "rules" might be remnants of some style guide or other, or they may have been arbitrary school "marm" rules dreamed up to instil discipline in (or inflict maximum misery on) children.
The only "rule" about splitting infinitives is that you should place the adverb to properly convey your meaning.
"To go boldly where no man has gone before..." doesn't sound right. :)
There is a very useful style guide "Words into Type", Prentice-Hall. I have the 3rd edition but there are probably more recent editions by now.
Many of the things that we consider "rules" or mistakes are conventions of the day. There are real rules of grammar, of course, but many of the things that people complain about are just things that they are used to or were taught. The language has never been static and isn't now.
A good example appeared in these pages a few weeks ago. I remember because I looked it up. There was a complaint from one contributor about the use of the phrase "begs the question". The phrase has a specific cultural meaning that is different than the actual denotation of the words in the phrase. Someone used the phrase in a way that was different than its current common meaning. Doing so was not a grammatical error, it was just a misunderstanding of the cultural meaning of the phrase. In 20 years's time, that specific cultural idea may die away completely. This is not unlike using "bad" when we mean "good" or the ironic "I could care less" instead of the more accurate "I couldn't care less". Proper usage may indicate hipness but it doesn't imply that you know grammar.
Many "rules" are contextual. It is silly to insist on using the style of scientific or legal journals in a photography web forum. The articles on the site should be held to a slightly higher standard than the forums, I'd say, but some of the comments I've read lately seem over the top to me. It is just a few errors not the end of civilization.
One simple and effective way to avoid some of those errors though is to simply have someone other than the author read/proof the text before publication. This isn't a daily newspaper, there is no need to rush to deadline.
Robert, Shakespeare was an artist.
As such, you can't expect him to employ perfect English grammar, though for all I know, he might have been doing just dandy for the times. He was as much in the entertainment industry as any old singer from Nashville, or even the Brill Building. These people never permit grammar to stand in the way of things being assonant, and neither they should. There's permitted licence in such cases, but not any sense that the usage is applicable in formal, written intercourse.
Split infinitives simply don't make sense. Of course folks know what's intended, but that's no excuse for bad form.
Begging the question does have a specific meaning; because many fail to understand that does not, of itself, render the term silly or irrelevant. You could extend the defence of bad grammer to the point where grammar turns into dust, and nothing makes any more sense ever again.
Sloppiness is not its own validation.
Rob
-
Thanks, kimballistic for having the guts to raise this issue. It has annoyed me, as well, for some time. My spelling is atrocious at times and my grammar not much better, but Ray, Peter and Andrew are correct: a professional website, like any professional journal or magazine one pays for, should have edited articles that are typo-free with generally acceptable grammar. Photographers are not, by default, writers. Having an editor can help bridge that gap.
The forum, on the other hand, can remain the dog’s breakfast it is. ;)
-
If I were Josh, I would tap a few people on this thread to volunteer for part-time editor's duty.
Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge? I think it quite sufficient that folks post without getting some financial return for their efforts. Don't forget, posters are actually content providers (as distinct from mere contented posters), providing far more daily content than the management ever managed to provide, again, for obvious reasons. When writers dry up, so will the site.
Rob
-
Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge? I think it quite sufficient that folks post without getting some financial return for their efforts. Don't forget, posters are actually content providers (as distinct from mere contented posters), providing far more daily content than the management ever managed to provide, again, for obvious reasons. When writers dry up, so will the site.
Rob
I have been on the site for about four months now, and my impression is there are only about two dozen active members providing most of the content on the forum. Josh is really going to have to step up the game on the home page to bring new life to the site.
-
Thanks, kimballistic for having the guts to raise this issue. It has annoyed me, as well, for some time. My spelling is atrocious at times and my grammar not much better, but Ray, Peter and Andrew are correct: a professional website, like any professional journal or magazine one pays for, should have edited articles that are typo-free with generally acceptable grammar. Photographers are not, by default, writers. Having an editor can help bridge that gap.
The forum, on the other hand, can remain the dog’s breakfast it is. ;)
Do you remember the times when Michael used to ask people to behave here as if they were sitting in his parlour?
;-)
-
Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge? I think it quite sufficient that folks post without getting some financial return for their efforts. Don't forget, posters are actually content providers (as distinct from mere contented posters), providing far more daily content than the management ever managed to provide, again, for obvious reasons. When writers dry up, so will the site.
Rob
OK. I agree on all your points. I was thinking there are some people here who write really well and know a split infinitive when they see one (not me.) Maybe some form of compensation can be worked out.
Incidentally, I tried to read Alain Briot's new article today and I couldn't go past the Intro.
-
OK. I agree on all your points. I was thinking there are some people here who write really well and know a split infinitive when they see one (not me.) Maybe some form of compensation can be worked out.
I did a lot of technical writing and editing during my career and still do a fair amount as a consultant. I'm not sure the website can afford to pay my going rate ($125/hour). If they can, I am happy to volunteer. ;D
-
The split infinitive rule was promoted as gospel for a period of time, but was always nonsense:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/split-infinitives
-
Josh, you may feel free to take this as advice or not, as you see fit!
If I were running this site, and (this is important) I wanted to position the site as a higher-end, polished, product, I would do this:
1. Draft a short style guide, something like: 10th grade reading level, oxford commas, punctuation goes inside quotes and parens.
2. Good "online copy editing service"
3. Pick out 3 likely looking ones.
4. Test them out with some articles with a few errors salted in.
5. Select the best one, and contract with them to copy-edit all the articles.
This would add expense to each article, but would definitely improve the finish of the site.
I'd let the style guide evolve, developing standard word and capitalization choices, and so on, the usual stuff, but that can wait a while.
-
... Photographers are not, by default, writers...
Those who can, photograph; those who can not, write ;)
-
Those who can, photograph; those who can not, write ;)
Huh?
-
Huh?
Paraphrasing “those who can, do; those who can not, teach.” Meaning (my paraphrased version) that good writers (about photography) are not necessarily good photographers, and vice versa. Meaning, further, that Josh has an excellent opportunity to be seen as a good writer ;)
-
Paraphrasing “those who can, do; those who can not, teach.” Meaning (my paraphrased version) that good writers (about photography) are not necessarily good photographers, and vice versa. Meaning, further, that Josh has an excellent opportunity to be seen as a good writer ;)
Because he is not a good photographer?
-
Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge?
I receive no payment for moderating the forums here and have never requested any. I've gained a lot of knowledge from others' wisdom and now gain satisfaction by contributing what I can. In any event, the forums are free.
Some might argue that I'm paid what I'm worth, of course.
Jeremy
-
"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."
That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.
Jeremy
This sentence is correct. It's also a literal quote from the book. It's easier to read if you pause at the commas.
-
Begging the question does have a specific meaning; because many fail to understand that does not, of itself, render the term silly or irrelevant. You could extend the defence of bad grammer to the point where grammar turns into dust, and nothing makes any more sense ever again.
We are not going to see eye to eye on this one.
The phrase does have a specific meaning, but that meaning is a cultural one that only some English speakers are aware of. That meaning has nothing to do with correct or incorrect grammar.
If the current usage goes out of fashion, it will go out of fashion for reasons other than grammar. It has probably already gone out of fashion among some English speakers/writers. One day it may disappear completely. Its new meaning will be no more correct or incorrect than the current one.
-
We are not going to see eye to eye on this one.
The phrase does have a specific meaning, but that meaning is a cultural one that only some English speakers are aware of. That meaning has nothing to do with correct or incorrect grammar.
If the current usage goes out of fashion, it will go out of fashion for reasons other than grammar. It has probably already gone out of fashion among some English speakers/writers. One day it may disappear completely. Its new meaning will be no more correct or incorrect than the current one.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not some cultural saying. It is unlikely to fall out of usage any time soon. Especially around here.
-
"begging the question" is, like most terms from logic referring to a specific fallacy, being adopted into the vernacular. What it means in common usage (and what other similar terms, see also "strawman" and "appeal to authority") is "I disagree with you" and that is quite distinct from its technical usage.
-
"begging the question" is, like most terms from logic referring to a specific fallacy, being adopted into the vernacular. What it means in common usage (and what other similar terms, see also "strawman" and "appeal to authority") is "I disagree with you" and that is quite distinct from its technical usage.
If people use the phrase "begging the question" to mean "I disagree with you", then they are misusing it. People misuse words and phrases all the time.
-
I receive no payment for moderating the forums here and have never requested any. I've gained a lot of knowledge from others' wisdom and now gain satisfaction by contributing what I can. In any event, the forums are free.
Some might argue that I'm paid what I'm worth, of course.
Jeremy
I think you should ask for at least a 20% raise. ;)
Eric
-
I think you should ask for at least a 20% raise. ;)
Eric
Isn't that kinda pushing it a wee bit beyond the rate of western inflation?
Rob
-
I am more of a descriptive linguist than a prescriptive one.
-
Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not some cultural saying. It is unlikely to fall out of usage any time soon. Especially around here.
You misunderstand me, or I phrased it badly. The concept for which we use the phrase "begging the question" is a logical fallacy as you state. But the actual words we use "begging the question" is an expression that we invented to mean that (see below). It is not a given that those three words would mean what they have come to mean. They have come to mean what they mean because we all (more or less) decided to use them that way. They don't grammatically in themselves have that meaning. Someone educated in the "Queen's English" that may never have come across the phrase during their upbringing would not know to interpret the phrase in that manner. You need the cultural knowledge to interpret it that way. All I am saying is that using it "incorrectly" is not a grammatical error.
From the wikipedia entry: "The phrase begging the question originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point". In modern vernacular usage, "begging the question" is frequently incorrectly used to mean "raising the question" or "dodging the question". In contexts that demand strict adherence to a technical definition of the term, many consider these usages incorrect.
English had always been descriptive and not prescriptive. Expressions fall into and out of favour all the time. Simon Winchester wrote a very interesting book about the construction of the original edition of the Oxford English dictionary.
-
... In modern vernacular usage, "begging the question" is frequently incorrectly used to mean "raising the question"...
Why incorrectly? My understanding is it means exactly like that and nothing else. Says Slobodan, as an English-as-second-language forum member.
-
Why incorrectly? My understanding is it means exactly like that and nothing else. Says Slobodan, as an English-as-second-language forum member.
That phrase from the Wikipedia extract, from which I did not include footnotes. Maybe the footnotes better explain what they mean by "incorrectly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).
But it seems to me a bit like a denotation vs connotation thing. That is, if all you knew was the definition of the three words "begging the question" and a bit about English grammar and you saw the phrase for the first time, you would not know that what is meant by it is the logical fallacy that many others automatically understand it to mean. But someone who has only seen it used that way their entire life would regard any other use as erroneous. Maybe it's in that sense that they mean "incorrectly".
There are probably many other examples of expressions whose generally understood meaning does not strictly correspond to the words used in the expression, and I've been sitting here trying to think of some but can't. Sorry, some other examples might have helped to clarify things.
-
This site is getting so childish... Enough with the nit picking already!
-
There are probably many other examples of expressions whose generally understood meaning does not strictly correspond to the words used in the expression, and I've been sitting here trying to think of some but can't. Sorry, some other examples might have helped to clarify things.
That's just anything idiomatic, by definition, eh?
"I don't have a dog in this hunt"
"He killed it!"
"My team died in the second half"
"I'm dog-tired"
and so on.
Technical phrases, when used in common speech, tend to become idiomatic usage. Idiomatic usage tends to drift over time. A technical phrase, therefore, may easily enter the vernacular with a meaning close to or identical with the technical one, but that vernacular usage will tend to drift over time.
-
This site is getting so childish... Enough with the nit picking already!
This is only your fifth post. Why not wait around for a while before you pass judgement?
-
Technical phrases, when used in common speech, tend to become idiomatic usage. Idiomatic usage tends to drift over time. A technical phrase, therefore, may easily enter the vernacular with a meaning close to or identical with the technical one, but that vernacular usage will tend to drift over time.
I remember back in graduate school being mildly upbraided by my thesis advisor for using 'hopefully' in sentence. At that time (1974), it was only used in common speech and many regarded it as 'shorthand.' I think today is is commonly accepted. When I submitted the first draft of my dissertation, he struck out all the uses of the phrase 'due to.' He noted that the rent can be do but something that happens in an experiment is 'a result of.' As with hopefully 'due to' is pretty much common usage these day.
-
I'm not passing judgement on Josh's post(s) which I've enjoyed so far - It's the nit picking I've been reading on various posts since the change. I'm not a huge poster here but have been a paying customer owning many of their videos (before they were part of the membership), to my yearly membership since they went in that direction. I agree with you - lets let the dust settle a bit before passing judgement.
-
That phrase from the Wikipedia extract, from which I did not include footnotes. Maybe the footnotes better explain what they mean by "incorrectly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)...
Seems to me that the basis for "incorrectly" in modern usage is simply to deny the right for a different interpretation, other than the classic one as a logical fallacy. In other words, arguing that way that there should be no modern usage.
If we accept that there is a modern usage, different from the logical fallacy, then there is no reason not to understand it on the basis of the words it uses. To me, it simply means the following: when a statement is unusual, absurd, or paradoxical, then I beg you for clarification by asking a question, thus the statement "begs the question." As "begging" is a stronger word than "asking," it serves as a signal that the original statement is rather incredulous.
-
Seems to me that the basis for "incorrectly" in modern usage is simply to deny the right for a different interpretation, other than the classic one as a logical fallacy. In other words, arguing that way that there should be no modern usage.
If we accept that there is a modern usage, different from the logical fallacy, then there is no reason not to understand it on the basis of the words it uses. To me, it simply means the following: when a statement is unusual, absurd, or paradoxical, then I beg you for clarification by asking a question, thus the statement "begs the question." As "begging" is a stronger word than "asking," it serves as a signal that the original statement is rather incredulous.
You can, of course, make up any meaning you want.
-
You can, of course, make up any meaning you want.
I am not making anything up, just explaining why "begging the question" has become "raising the question" in recent times: From the same Wikipedia link:
... sources such as the Meriam Webster Dictionary and non-prescriptivist critics acknowledge the usage of the phrase as a synonym for “raises the question” as popularly accepted.
-
Translating "beg a question" to German results in "eine Frage stellen" and pretty much to the same meaning in French "poser une question".
Translating both terms back to English results in a much more prosaic term - "ask a question".
-
I think it is time for RSL to contribute on this discussion of "begging the question".
-
I remember back in graduate school being mildly upbraided by my thesis advisor for using 'hopefully' in sentence. At that time (1974), it was only used in common speech and many regarded it as 'shorthand.' I think today is is commonly accepted. When I submitted the first draft of my dissertation, he struck out all the uses of the phrase 'due to.' He noted that the rent can be do but something that happens in an experiment is 'a result of.' As with hopefully 'due to' is pretty much common usage these day.
I hate beating this horse but this may interest you. If others don't care, look away, don't read this.
Before retiring, my last job for 10 years was copy-editing scientific journals (mostly physics and chemistry). The usage of "due to" vs "because of" or "owing to" came up all the time.
From the web somewhere, I found this good explanation: These examples highlight the difference between "due to" and "because of": He failed because of bad planning. In short, "because of" modifies a verb, but "due to" modifies a noun (or pronoun). In common usage, though, you will often hear/see them being used interchangeably.
As for "hopefully", I read somewhere once that the word we really needed was "hope-ably" but it never caught one.
Although people might dispute it based on my responses on this thread, I am not a grammar nerd. Far from it. Working in publishing did not make me an expert in grammar, spelling or anything else. But time and time again when researching an ambiguous turn of phrase, I discovered just how many things that we think are rules of grammar simply are not and never were. This seems to bother some people, and I don't understand why.
-
Seems to me that the basis for "incorrectly" in modern usage is simply to deny the right for a different interpretation, other than the classic one as a logical fallacy. In other words, arguing that way that there should be no modern usage.
If we accept that there is a modern usage, different from the logical fallacy, then there is no reason not to understand it on the basis of the words it uses. To me, it simply means the following: when a statement is unusual, absurd, or paradoxical, then I beg you for clarification by asking a question, thus the statement "begs the question." As "begging" is a stronger word than "asking," it serves as a signal that the original statement is rather incredulous.
Yes, this is how the language evolves. It puzzles me why people object to this since we probably all inadvertently use phrases from time to time that had no accepted meaning a generation or two ago.
-
Warning, this is for nerds only.
I found a telecast of a lecture by Simon Winchester on his book about the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary. Not sure if there are country restrictions on this: https://www.tvo.org//video/archive/big-ideas/simon-winchester-on-his-book-the-meaning-of-everything (https://www.tvo.org//video/archive/big-ideas/simon-winchester-on-his-book-the-meaning-of-everything) . It is surprisingly interesting for a geeky topic and he's entertaining speaker.
-
"Why will an editor never starve in a desert?"
"Because of the sand that is there"
Okay. A little obscure perhaps.
-
While we're on the subject of people mistaking what things actually mean, in my former place of employment (in Texas) the company canteen offered a choice between cole slaw and hot slaw.
-
Translating "beg a question" to German results in "eine Frage stellen" and pretty much to the same meaning in French "poser une question".
Translating both terms back to English results in a much more prosaic term - "ask a question".
That is a ridiculously silly exercise which ignores the existence of idiom and proves nothing at all. It's reminiscent of the old trope of a computerised translation of "out of sight, out of mind" from English into [another language] and back again producing "invisible idiot".
"Beg the question" does not mean "raise the question"; it refers to a logical fallacy. On the other hand, perhaps I'd better write "did not" and "referred", as I accept that language changes over time; but the loss of a useful phrase is to be mourned.
Jeremy
-
Je repose ma valise :-)
-
Beg the question.
It's when you ask a question basing the entire thing on an assumption, such as here: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
The assumption is that the person does beat his wife, which may or may not be the case.
It does not mean a question arising from an earlier statement, as when you follow through the steps of an argument or debate, posing the question in response to some just received information, to which your own question seems a logical next step derived from, and based upon, what went before.
Rob
-
Beg the question.
It's when you ask a question basing the entire thing on an assumption, such as here: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
The assumption is that the person does beat his wife, which may or may not be the case.
It does not mean a question arising from an earlier statement, as when you follow through the steps of an argument or debate, posing the question in response to some just received information, to which your own question seems a logical next step derived from, and based upon, what went before.
Rob
None of that is in dispute.
But if the usage changes over time, so that in some contexts the specific phrase "begs the question" ends up meaning something else, then it will end up meaning something else too. There is no rule of grammar to prevent it.
-
That is a ridiculously silly exercise which ignores the existence of idiom and proves nothing at all. It's reminiscent of the old trope of a computerised translation of "out of sight, out of mind" from English into [another language] and back again producing "invisible idiot".
"Beg the question" does not mean "raise the question"; it refers to a logical fallacy. On the other hand, perhaps I'd better write "did not" and "referred", as I accept that language changes over time; but the loss of a useful phrase is to be mourned.
Jeremy
which begs the question why would anyone take these silly examples seriously. Fortunately, the Google translation program didn't and since it recognized the English idiom correctly and at the same time it accounted for the inadequacy of both German and French languages in the said context, it did find find the nearest approximation of the meaning. By offering this translation to an unsuspecting German or French reader it still transmitted a pretty good translation.
However, by turning the dial to the manual mode and asking the Google translator to deal with an artificially constructed "mendier une question" or"betteln eine Frage" to English, it would perform the accurate translation and deliver "beg a question". Before anybody raises further questions, asking Google to translate "mendier une question" to German or "betteln eine Frage" to French, in both cases the translation would be streamlined and furnished as "poser une question" ("Frage stellen"). And this, my ladies and gentlemen, is the finest example of applied AI in modern linguistics.
-
which begs the question
Or not, as Rob pointed out.
-
You can use the language with precision or not. Rationalizing sloppiness in how you express yourself by saying everybody does it hardly recommends itself.
-
This site is getting so childish... Enough with the nit picking already!
Sorry Alan and anyone else who questioned Mikenor2 (I don’t have the stomach to read everything that’s been written) - but I have to agree with him.
All this sniping and chirping is a great way to drive away those who are interested in talking photography. It’s a clear sign of having too much time on your hands.
-
While we're on the subject of people mistaking what things actually mean, in my former place of employment (in Texas) the company canteen offered a choice between cole slaw and hot slaw.
Mighty fine canteen !
-
I don't know if others have noticed or not, but spelling errors, grammar errors, and sentences that don't make sense, are all part of the new normal. It used to be that if a misspelling occurred in newspaper articles, there would be reader complaints, and apologies from the paper. Almost all of my reading now is online and I probably see 2-5 errors a day. Magazines and newspapers have cut back so much on staff, and today’s competitiveness to get the story out first, means that efficiency cuts out the editing job. It used to bother me, but I've got over it....they aren't even teaching cursive writing in school anymore, young people don't wear watches because they have their phones, the world is full of Lol's, rotfl's. It's a different generation that cares about the big picture, but isn't as fastidious with the details. It's not going away, so you might as well get used to it. I don't think an editor is required, I am happy seeing Josh in the CEO role, I've enjoyed his articles so far, and it's refreshing to have new-old blood. This site needs to attract new up and comers as others have said, there are a lot of old guys on this site. I have followed LuLa since it’s beginning, and it used to be excellent. I thought I was missing things when I didn't join, so I joined and I wasn't missing anything. Those videos done in the camera shop with 3 old guys giggling and drinking too much whiskey were not anything close to what will attract Millennials, or women, for that matter. If you don't get new content that will attract new younger photographers, male and female, the site will die as the average age goes higher. That's what we need Josh and Irene for. There is no room for all the mocking and horror about Josh and Irene's backgrounds. Everyone one of us have qualities and knowledge we bring to the table that contribute to the overall picture and we need to take advantage of that, because that is where new ideas and new creativity come from. I look forward to the future here, where I was ready to sign off the site before.
-
Sorry Alan and anyone else who questioned Mikenor2 (I donated have the stomach to read everything that’s been written) - but I have to agree with him.
All this sniping and chirping is a great way to drive away those who are interested in talking photography. It’s a clear sign of having too much time on your hands.
The discussion got a bit geeky but I would not characterize this thread as sniping. I appreciate that the subject matter may not be generally interesting but you could say that about a lot of threads. Also, I don't agree that it would drive away people who are interested in photography since the subject heading made it clear what the thread was about and so pretty easy to ignore. There are a lot of threads that I never look at for that very reason.
For one, I found out that there is such a thing as hot slaw, which I'd never heard of. I assume it means hot as in hot sauce, and not as in temperature.
-
The discussion got a bit geeky but I would not characterize this thread as sniping. I appreciate that the subject matter may not be generally interesting but you could say that about a lot of threads. Also, I don't agree that it would drive away people who are interested in photography since the subject heading made it clear what the thread was about and so pretty easy to ignore. There are a lot of threads that I never look at for that very reason.
For one, I found out that there is such a thing as hot slaw, which I'd never heard of. I assume it means hot as in hot sauce, and not as in temperature.
Exactly: it's the pay-off for a type of genre identification [ ;-) ], clearly defined sections of interest that save reader patience and time...
I would add another point: photographs are not really things about which anything much can be written (that's intersting, rather than art-speak) because anything written is going to be based on the writer's subjective reaction and tells us more about the critic than it does the photograph, and absolutely nothing at all about the photographer. I, for one, usually don't give a fig about the interviewer unless he/she is also a renowned photographer in his/her own right.
That's why I have long advocated interviews with photographers about their whys and not their hows, which are usually quite self-evident to anyone who has the ability to read a photograph just a little bit. If one decides on a site policy that means reducing the content to the level of the neophyte, than most folks will vote with their feet.
Rob
-
I don't know if others have noticed or not, but spelling errors, grammar errors, and sentences that don't make sense, are all part of the new normal. It used to be that if a misspelling occurred in newspaper articles, there would be reader complaints, and apologies from the paper. Almost all of my reading now is online and I probably see 2-5 errors a day. Magazines and newspapers have cut back so much on staff, and today’s competitiveness to get the story out first, means that efficiency cuts out the editing job. It used to bother me, but I've got over it....they aren't even teaching cursive writing in school anymore, young people don't wear watches because they have their phones, the world is full of Lol's, rotfl's. It's a different generation that cares about the big picture, but isn't as fastidious with the details. It's not going away, so you might as well get used to it. I don't think an editor is required, I am happy seeing Josh in the CEO role, I've enjoyed his articles so far, and it's refreshing to have new-old blood. This site needs to attract new up and comers as others have said, there are a lot of old guys on this site. I have followed LuLa since it’s beginning, and it used to be excellent. I thought I was missing things when I didn't join, so I joined and I wasn't missing anything. Those videos done in the camera shop with 3 old guys giggling and drinking too much whiskey were not anything close to what will attract Millennials, or women, for that matter. If you don't get new content that will attract new younger photographers, male and female, the site will die as the average age goes higher. That's what we need Josh and Irene for. There is no room for all the mocking and horror about Josh and Irene's backgrounds. Everyone one of us have qualities and knowledge we bring to the table that contribute to the overall picture and we need to take advantage of that, because that is where new ideas and new creativity come from. I look forward to the future here, where I was ready to sign off the site before.
So, Shirley, are you advocating surrender to the philistines still mostly beyond the stockade?
You write quite well, so that seems to suggest an altruistically defensive attitude rather than a hearfelt belief.
;-)
-
I don't know if others have noticed or not, but spelling errors, grammar errors, and sentences that don't make sense, are all part of the new normal.
This does not mean that it is acceptable.
Almost all of my reading now is online and I probably see 2-5 errors a day.
The grammar and usage on most major news/information websites is exemplary. Since anyone can start and maintain a website these days leads to lots of poor writing.
I have followed LuLa since it’s beginning, and it used to be excellent. I thought I was missing things when I didn't join, so I joined and I wasn't missing anything.
Yet according to your statistics you are a relatively new member. One of the features of LuLa is the sharing of information through reviews and on the forums.
Those videos done in the camera shop with 3 old guys giggling and drinking too much whiskey were not anything close to what will attract Millennials, or women, for that matter.
I'm not sure what videos these might be. Certainly there was considerable humor in the excellent tutorial videos that Michael Reichman and Jeff Schewe did. The informational content in these videos should appeal to everyone.
If you don't get new content that will attract new younger photographers, male and female, the site will die as the average age goes higher.
The overwhelming number of photographers use cell phones and post to Instagram and other social sites. Is this a potential target audience?
That's what we need Josh and Irene for.
All of us who have been here and contributed are happy to give them a chance to demonstrate that they have the right stuff. Some of use were extremely disappointed at how this transition was handled and have been vocal about that.
-
I would add another point: photographs are not really things about which anything much can be written (that's intersting, rather than art-speak) because anything written is going to be based on the writer's subjective reaction and tells us more about the critic than it does the photograph, and absolutely nothing at all about the photographer. I, for one, usually don't give a fig about the interviewer unless he/she is also a renowned photographer in his/her own right.
Rob
I would take issue with this. There are a number of curators who have mounted important photographic exhibitions who are not necessarily renowned photographers. Often they have written valuable appraisals of the photographers whose work is/has been exhibited. Photography is just as open to artistic criticism as painting and architecture; I would not be quick to dismiss this.
-
One benefit of the small amount of teaching I do is the contact with young people that it enables. Despite their sometimes annoying speling and gramir habits, youth can offer some refreshing and novel perspectives to us oldies - sometimes even driving us to better photography.
As ShirleyB and I have both commented, old men drinking alcohol and talking gear isn't valuable content. I suspect these videos may have played a place in the recent management decisions.
The recent palace coup was surprising, but perhaps beneficial. As Trump says, "We'll see what happens."
-
As Trump says, "We'll see what happens."
Well, that pretty much puts the kiss of death on it.
-
So, Shirley, are you advocating surrender to the philistines still mostly beyond the stockade?
You write quite well, so that seems to suggest an altruistically defensive attitude rather than a hearfelt belief.
;-)
Thanks for the writing compliment! ....and all my beliefs are heartfelt, I don't waste my time on things that aren’t
Shirley
-
One benefit of the small amount of teaching I do is the contact with young people that it enables. Despite their sometimes annoying speling and gramir habits, youth can offer some refreshing and novel perspectives to us oldies - sometimes even driving us to better photography.
As ShirleyB and I have both commented, old men drinking alcohol and talking gear isn't valuable content. I suspect these videos may have played a place in the recent management decisions.
The recent palace coup was surprising, but perhaps beneficial. As Trump says, "We'll see what happens."
I enjoyed working with models younger than myself, but not their music and neither always their obsessions. It can be very difficult when you hear a young person speaking totally confidently from inexperience, especially when keeping that person onside is vital to the success of your venture.
Old men sitting around and drinking is as boring to me as young men sitting around and drinking, if only because I am medically forbidden to participate beyond the solitary glass of red wine. Drink-inspired conversation sounds even worse to the sober ear.
Were either the young or old to be talking gear at the same time it would be a fate far, far worse than the usual tall tales about golf or women or both at the same time.
I can't remember old men sitting drinking too much whisky and discussing gear on this site; maybe I'm not sufficiently into gear to have found that video.
-
‘Twas no mistake - I meant the cutest sort of devourable 🍜
Yikes!
Rand
-
Thanks for the writing compliment! ....and all my beliefs are heartfelt, I don't waste my time on things that aren’t
Shirley
Ah Shirley, lucky you!
The only time that I feel my own time is probably not wasted entirely is when I decide it's time to make lunch. However, that inner man has one sophisticated appetite, but such an incompetent as his cook! And trust me, that's a heartfelt belief of my own.
It's not as bad in the summer season because there are a couple of nice places that support my tummy; sadly, they both close in winter and I have to make do with myself. Or starve, and I'm thin enough already not to want to play dangerous games...
-
The grammar and usage on most major news/information websites is exemplary.
You must read a different set of sites from those which I frequent, Alan. The sites run by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph and (perhaps less surprisingly) The Guardian - all major news/information sites - are riddled daily with mistakes in grammar, punctuation and spelling.
Jeremy
-
This does not mean that it is acceptable.The grammar and usage on most major news/information websites is exemplary. Since anyone can start and maintain a website these days leads to lots of poor writing.Yet according to your statistics you are a relatively new member. One of the features of LuLa is the sharing of information through reviews and on the forums.I'm not sure what videos these might be. Certainly there was considerable humor in the excellent tutorial videos that Michael Reichman and Jeff Schewe did. The informational content in these videos should appeal to everyone.
The overwhelming number of photographers use cell phones and post to Instagram and other social sites. Is this a potential target audience? All of us who have been here and contributed are happy to give them a chance to demonstrate that they have the right stuff. Some of use were extremely disappointed at how this transition was handled and have been vocal about that.
.
Thanks for your comments Alan, as I mentioned in my post, I have followed LuLa since the start, I have had accounts over the time period but I can never remember my login name or my password, so I didn't join and pay my $12 until I decided to see what I was missing in articles. Also I really wanted to read Alain Briot's articles. When I started doing shows selling my photography in 2005 he was like my how-to-god, he had great informative podcasts. I don't usually comment on forums, because the back and forth sucks up a lot of time, like right now when I should be getting my prints ready for a show. The sites that I have seeing errors on are not yahoos who started their own website, I am increasingly seeing it in NYT, WP, CNN and recently in a lot of well known authors novels. It really bothered me at first as the lack of quality irked me, but I can't change the world, and I don't have the time even if I wanted to. Yes Michael did wonderful informative videos that were outstanding and taught me a lot, but what my posting referred to was the content after Michaels passing. I was glad to hear that Peter McLennan thought as I did regarding the whiskey and gear videos, that isn't the type of content Michael would have had. I think there is an opportunity for Josh to get the site back on track and educate a younger clientele as I was educated when I started out. When you get to a stage when you are only talking about very high end gear, there is a limited audience for that, and that is when I think the site risks losing its audience. I now have high end gear, but it’s taken 15 years and some success to be able to that point. I got to that point partly due to the quality that was LuLa. That is not to say there is no room for mature individuals (see I didn't say old;-). ) they are the ones needed to impart their knowledge. Anyways, now I really have to go and varnish canvases. Shirley
-
I can't remember old men sitting drinking too much whisky and discussing gear on this site; maybe I'm not sufficiently into gear to have found that video.
Rob,
I think the reference of old men sitting around and drinking whisky was referring to the On The Rocks that Kevin participated in some time ago. The discussion of the Olympus MFT was informative and the participants did not appear to be intoxicated. However, I think the drinking theme was a bit questionable.
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-the-rocks-episode-one/
Bill
-
I can't remember old men sitting drinking too much whisky and discussing gear on this site; maybe I'm not sufficiently into gear to have found that video.
Neither am I, Rob, but I have to say the gear threads are beginning to appeal, particularly when compared to this pedantic nonsense.
:-(
-
... old men drinking alcohol and talking gear isn't valuable content....
Yes. God forbid this site would discuss gear.
-
I enjoyed working with models younger than myself, but not their music and neither always their obsessions. It can be very difficult when you hear a young person speaking totally confidently from inexperience
Are there any models NOT younger than you (us) ?? :-)
One of the things I like about working with young people (models or students) is their enthusiasm and optimism. Maybe those traits are a function of inexperience, but it is a breath of fresh air for this old fart.
-
Are there any models NOT younger than you (us) ?? :-)
One of the things I like about working with young people (models or students) is their enthusiasm and optimism. Maybe those traits are a function of inexperience, but it is a breath of fresh air for this old fart.
Today, if they deigned to work with me, they'd think of me as their old grandpa, not the best way to elicit any sexual frisson so helpful in engendering chemistry, even without any intention whatsoever of bringing the thing to reality which, IMO, would kill it stone deaded. But hey, I wasn't born old, and wasn't old when I started, which kids can forget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAkUg-eRIaE
;-)
-
Yes. God forbid this site would discuss gear.
And almost nothing else, editorially speaking.
Gear is easy; sellers are happy and able to get coverage the more monopolistic they become, and GAS the contemporary disease for which they are equally happy to dispense their snake oil remedies, new gear having nothing much to do with photographs per se, as the oil of any old snake is capable enough for anyone, especially since the advent of stitching which will become the Amazon of the photo-gear junkyard, consigning the megapixellators to the dumper and benign regard of the junkyard hound.
If you seek more than GAS, which I believe is where you are at and have been for ages, you depend mostly on columns/threads such as the one you are reading the noo, and the efforts of the posters to be heard and make their varied points... what have you honestly found recently in the editorials that gave you the hots?
I occasionally go though some of them to catch up, but almost never as the first stop when LuLa gets switched on. If it's a how-to I switch over to something else. Somebody mentioned the "problem" vis-à-vis expensive gear, since few are probably willing to shell out the price. I have no problem with reviews of any level of camera as I have no intentions of buying anything more at all, my current stuff better at the job of making exposures than am I at making interesting ones. What would I gain by spending more?
All I'd offer about reviews is that guy doing the review, if it's a video, not kiss ass so damned much: it makes me feel very uncomfortable and embarrassed on his behalf and not a little on that of the subject, who must find it cloyingy difficult too.
Rob
-
And almost nothing else, editorially speaking.
Gear is easy; sellers are happy and able to get coverage the more monopolistic they become, and GAS the contemporary disease for which they are equally happy to dispense their snake oil remedies, new gear having nothing much to do with photographs per se, as the oil of any old snake is capable enough for anyone, especially since the advent of stitching which will become the Amazon of the photo-gear junkyard, consigning the megapixellators to the dumper and benign regard of the junkyard hound.
If you seek more than GAS, which I believe is where you are at and have been for ages, you depend mostly on columns/threads such as the one you are reading the noo, and the efforts of the posters to be heard and make their varied points... what have you honestly found recently in the editorials that gave you the hots?
I occasionally go though some of them to catch up, but almost never as the first stop when LuLa gets switched on. If it's a how-to I switch over to something else. Somebody mentioned the "problem" vis-à-vis expensive gear, since few are probably willing to shell out the price. I have no problem with reviews of any level of camera as I have no intentions of buying anything more at all, my current stuff better at the job of making exposures than am I at making interesting ones. What would I gain by spending more?
All I'd offer about reviews is that guy doing the review, if it's a video, not kiss ass so damned much: it makes me feel very uncomfortable and embarrassed on his behalf and not a little on that of the subject, who must find it cloyingy difficult too.
Rob
At the risk of going way off-topic in this thread, some of that gear talk is kind of important though. No matter what else you're doing and with what, you sort of have to keep track of what else is going on if for no other reason than to know where to start looking for replacement gear when the gizmo you're holding breaks. The whole gear worship side has a life of its own, of course, but it's not that difficult to ignore the large parts of it that don't matter to you. It takes a bit of sifting at first to figure out what NOT to bother reading but eventually you get good at it. (I start by looking at the MSRP. If it's above a certain threshold, I stop caring about the device, doesn't matter how good it is.)
-
Reviews of exotic equipment are not unlike reviews of exotic cars or travel reports from exotic locations. Although such purchase would be hard to justify, reading about it can be titillating. Sometimes even more satisfying just watching or reading from the comfort of your home than actually being there. And quite affordable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoIa253WD7s
-
... If you seek more than GAS, which I believe is where you are at and have been for ages, you depend mostly on columns/threads such as the one you are reading the noo, and the efforts of the posters to be heard and make their varied points... what have you honestly found recently in the editorials that gave you the hots?...
Rob, you need an editor for your posts, mate ;)
If the "you" refers to me, and not just a rhetorical one, then, honestly, I have not been finding much of interest in the editorials or the front page for quite some time. Center pages, centerfolds in particular, are a different matter. The only time I get there (editorials or guest articles) is when it provokes a discussion in the forums.
The latest two editorials didn't change that. I have very little interest in street photography, and in particular in the "hipster" one, and, honestly again, couldn't care less as to why someone is doing it. I might occasionally enjoy the end result, however (the latest article not included).
As for movies, I like them like I like my sausages: best not to know what goes in.
-
Equipment reviews, while still clearly the pieces that get the most engagement on the web, have been ticking steadily downwards in clickability.
Interest in doing photography is on the downturn, and most people who are interested know in their hearts that any camera will do nowadays, for almost all photographers.
-
Equipment reviews, while still clearly the pieces that get the most engagement on the web, have been ticking steadily downwards in clickability.
Interest in doing photography is on the downturn, and most people who are interested know in their hearts that any camera will do nowadays, for almost all photographers.
Yep. True that. But people unsure sure of their ability have a desperate hope that a new camera with new tech will make them better at photography. And while ability and practice will always trump equipment the equipment is not totally unimportant, it’s just not going to polish a turd for you.
-
Equipment reviews, while still clearly the pieces that get the most engagement on the web, have been ticking steadily downwards in clickability.
Interest in doing photography is on the downturn, and most people who are interested know in their hearts that any camera will do nowadays, for almost all photographers.
I can hear them chipping away at the marble already...
It's inevitable: no way that only pro photographers were going to get burned by Kodak's lousy later invention. There was going to be the popular rush to try it out and then - what? Make anything too easy and the magic dies with the ease. Every little girl's mother teaches (or taught) her those facts of life, and if business can't understand it, well, the consequences end up the same: a grand stuffing all round.
;-(
-
Rob, you need an editor for your posts, mate ;)
If the "you" refers to me, and not just a rhetorical one, then, honestly, I have not been finding much of interest in the editorials or the front page for quite some time. Center pages, centerfolds in particular, are a different matter. The only time I get there (editorials or guest articles) is when it provokes a discussion in the forums.
The latest two editorials didn't change that. I have very little interest in street photography, and in particular in the "hipster" one, and, honestly again, couldn't care less as to why someone is doing it. I might occasionally enjoy the end result, however (the latest article not included).
As for movies, I like them like I like my sausages: best not to know what goes in.
Yes, of course I meant you, as in Slobodan: you've been doing great work for ages and nobody has much to teach you.
The noo: okay, Omar Khayyám might not have lapsed into the old Scottish tongue but he came close:
Here with a loaf of bread
Beneah the bough,
A flask of wine, a book of
Verse - and thou
Beside me singing in the
Wilderness -
And wilderness is paradise enow.
Ann and I had many such occasions when we first came out here to live; pack the car with goodies, the champagne safe and chilled in the portable cooler, and the countryside was yours, especially should you decide to head for the hills. (However, all that bumping on tracks meant you had to take geat care with the opening ceremony or you'd get more champers in your eyes than in the glasses. We eventually accepted the inevitable and went for still wines instead. But it felt wonderful when it was new to us! Today, people go to all-inclusive hotels. Harry H. C.!)
It's all done now: nowhere to park; landowners obliged by law to fence all their territory or loose it (I think that was the deal; big estates spend zillions on fencing where no fence was realistically needed).
Omar would have caught the first 747 back to Persia. Rob stayed and made some snaps.
;-(
-
... The noo: okay, Omar Khayyám might not have lapsed into the old Scottish tongue but he came close...
Hahaha... Well, before assuming a typo (not unusual these days with auto-correct everywhere) I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked for the "noo." Here is what Apple is telling me it stands for:
-
Hahaha... Well, before assuming a typo (not unusual these days with auto-correct everywhere) I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked for the "noo." Here is what Apple is telling me it stands for:
That's the problem with the Internet and Wiki, too. All manner of stuff gets bundled and confused, just like with a contract for the Internet connection itself.