Messages

Not that there's anything wrong with computers interfacing with same-sex computers.

In fact, how does one distinguish genders in computers?

Do they have transgendered computers too?

Hehehe, it seems all DVD drives have probs -- My DVD drive works fine but it has this strange bug where it won't load anything on my first boot-up (cold boot) of my computer, but will work when I reset my system after loading windows.

I use PowerDVD with my computer -- Best DVD player IMHO.

Oh yeah??

http://www.angrynakedpat.com/network/icf/index.php

Then again, think about why they called it "Lord of the Rings".  

But... you loved Andy Penis!  

Nah.

I feel sorry for the poor guy.

Like it said, the "girlfriend" who wrote to him was actually a middle-aged guy -- and he was picked-on heaps at school.

Only cause he wanted a little action.

Man, talk about the efforts people go through just to get laid.

I mean, the American Pie lads never had to go through THAT!

I remember (back in the old days) being in school, and hearing someone spend basically an entire hour proclaiming that Visual Dbase was "Mega gay!" and "So fucking GAY!" and "Such a gay boy!"

Mind you, I guess VDb IS something of a sexual predator.

I've heard fanatical religious groups say they don't hate Visual Dbasers; they just hate VDb.  

Pessi: I figure if he's the only person I've got to complain about being wrong, I'm doing well.

Or tie a rock and throw them off Titanic.

* DGMacphee turns speakers toward Femme.

Mikey is back.

He's grown up and has a new website:
http://www.deceitful.org/

Read about his mullet-raising adventures here:
http://www.deceitful.org/history.php

Because more people voted for other things.

Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question.

Oh, of course -- how stupid of me!

How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

Damn... I wonder what you could call that book??

Maybe M*U*S*H?

Yeap, now name another book with the same general storyline as M*A*S*H.

And no, you can't say Catch 22, cause it follows a different narrative structure and the themes are way different.

teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

LMFAO! Sometimes I love DG... other times I love him more...

Thank you for your love!  

I thought maths was more of a universal language than music as such.

Then again, music is based on maths in a lot of ways.

Why not just call it version 2.7?

Why 3.0?

Also, why a need manual compiler when AGS's internal compiler already makes EXE files?

You utterly crazy lads!

There'll be a new one tomorrow.

There's this movie reviewer in Brisbane called Des Partridge.

I like his reviews, but he gets his facts wrong every now and then.

Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow.

That's going straight to my sig!  

No, what I'm saying is that for example a master writer doesn't need to have the Chicago Manual of Style open on their lap for constant reference, nor do they even need to consciously think about the rules, they can simply trust their skill and instinct and write.

I've heard a lot of master writers still use style manuals.

Yes, the master needs the basics, but the rules are not the basics.  Understanding the rules leads to an understanding of the basics, but the rules are not themselves the basics.

I disagree with this -- I think that "the basics" are rules.

There are savants who can become masters with no formal training at all; they have an intuitive notion of how to work their medium, and produce results that have the appearance of following the rules even though the creator never even knew what the rules were.

But this is an extremely rare thing.

And even then, such savants are no always highly regarded.

That's what I'm saying, that the novice consciously follows every rule to the letter, the intermediate consciously decides where to follow rules and where not to, and the master puts the rulebook away and works from their intuitive understanding of the deeper truths that the rules were derived from to begin with.  The master needs the deeper truths that underlie the rules, the true basics; but they don't need the rules themselves, which are actually a complication.

But, by that logic, I could throw away the all the rule books right of writing right now (including style mannuals and dictionaries, etc) and become a master.

Here we go:

teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

There -- I've purposely broken all the rules of writing, grammar and spelling.

And I don't make a great deal of sense.

Well, I have no idea who he is, but based on your descriptions I'm guessing he's one of those people who took off the training wheels off before he was ready.

He was the one who directed Plan Nine From Outer Space, considered the worst film in history.

And he'd already directed several films before that.

And he directed several films after that.

Every one was a stinker.

His life was made into a film by Tim Burton called "Ed Wood" and starred Johnny Depp.

I'm not saying that throwing the rules away makes someone a master; I'm saying that developing an intuitive understanding of why the rules exist makes someone a master.  Once you understand what's behind the rules, the rules themselves are no longer needed.

I only half agree here.

Yes, it's important that you understand why rules exist -- I think that's vital.

But I don't think you should turn your back on rules.

In grade school arithmetic, they teach us to always subtract the smaller number from the larger number.  That's a rule.  A rule that becomes obsolete and needlessly restrictive once you understand the concept of negative numbers (which in my case was about five minutes after being told to always subtract the smaller from the larger).  A very similar effect occurs with the rules for good art: once you understand why a rule was given, the rule itself becomes obsolete and even needlessly restrictive.  But that understanding can't be taught, so they teach the rules and hope the students can come to true understanding on their own.

But such rules aren't exactly obsolete -- they're just modification of rules.

I look at rules as not seperate entities, but as play-doh -- I can mold them the way I want to.

And people can always go back to those obsolete "grade school" rules and still succeed.

For example, read what I wrote about Picasso in my first post.

Someone please give me a GENERAL storyline (as these examples have been) that is COMPLETELY original, and I will revoke every single word of this thread.

How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

I don't think I've read any other story that's the same, unless someone else can provide one?

Yes, masters need to learn the rules... when they're still novices. They become masters when they don't need the rules anymore. You yourself gave examples of people who learned the rules and then discarded them when they no longer needed them.

But they don't discard them -- that's my point.

A master keeps these rules in mind so they can achieve what hasn't been achieved.

You seem to think that once you master something, you can easily shrug off thew rules and do your own thing.

I'm saying that's not true -- masters still need the basics as much as a novice.

A master needs the rules when they are both a master and novice.

They just use the rules in different ways.

It's essentially a small difference in our argument, but it's still a difference.

Besides, would you can Ed Wood a true master, as he ignored most rules of filmmaking? (even though he made essentially crap movies)

That's what separates Ed Wood from, say, Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola.

Also, I'm not one for metaphors about bicycles and such -- Usually they cloud real facts. (No offense, mind you -- It's just I prefer actual examples of masters who "ignore" the rules completely)

But to also put it in metaphorical terms, yes you wouldn't need the training wheels -- But you'd need to keep in mind the most important (and most basic) rule: If you pedal in one direction, you'll go forward.

And the breaks make you stop -- that's second-most important rule that master bicycle riders never forget.