The Romans Tried Aquaducts
rai...@mailinator.com
George W. Frost
<rai...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ld1co316kifsguab6...@4ax.com...
> And they are all dead now...
>
But, some of their aqueducts are still standing and being used
0tterbot
i'm pretty sure most individuals who were walking around 2000 years ago are
dead now ;-)
however, if the point you're making is that empires or civilisations end
because they expand too far beyond their own capacity, ability, or political
acceptability to run the things they've brought into being, then you're
right. all empires fail, & that is always why.
i don't think australians want to fuck themselves up forever making an
outrageous & unsustainable aquaduct system. but also, i think it has zero
chance of ever getting up. it's absurd. why are we discussing this?
kylie
Trish Brown
'Aqueducts'! Yes! Aqu*e*ducts! Thank you!
--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia
George W. Frost
"Trish Brown" <pmcb...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13odsjl...@corp.supernews.com...
Sorry Trish, wasn't trying to be facetious, I just typed it as I thought and
wasn't concerned with how others spelled it
Trish Brown
;-D
Sorry... I'm a retired school teacher and spelling is a hotspot for me.
Gives me the nervous hives when I see an error. They don't let you type
in red ink on the Internet, sadly. ;-D
George.com
"George W. Frost" <fro...@iceworks.org> wrote in message
news:Eqxhj.1658$421...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The teachers told us, the Romans built this place
They built a wall and a temple, an edge of the empire Garrison town,
They lived and they died, they prayed to their gods
But the stone gods did not make a sound
And their empire crumbled, 'til all that was left
Were the stones the workmen found
rob
Blackadder XXIV
centuries.
http://www.inforoma.it/feature.php?lookup=aqueduct
It has been calculated that in imperial times, when the city's population
was well over a million, the distribution system was able to provide over
one cubic meter of water per day for each inhabitant: more than we are
accustomed to use nowadays.
Now you realize why the Roman Empire fell didn't you? A host of barbarians,
Goths, Vandals, Huns etc.. from the North and East invaded Rome and
destroyed the aquaduct system - causing Rome to fall.
Looking at our situation today, Indonesia's population is increasing
rapidly. 200 million + at the last count. I'd suspect that in about 30 or 50
years time or so, their population will be about 500 million - and they'll
come over and take this land.
FarmI
> Sorry... I'm a retired school teacher and spelling is a hotspot for me.
> Gives me the nervous hives when I see an error. They don't let you type in
> red ink on the Internet, sadly. ;-D
I'm not a retired teacher but I too get the collywobbles at some of the more
blatant abuses we see. "To" for "too" drives me crackers and sometimes one
even sees "two" for one of the others. The American habit of writing/saying
"tell someone who could care less" simply astounds me.
Trish Brown
Additionally, what about 'prolly' for 'probably' and 'congradulations'
for 'congratulations' and 'walla' for 'voilà'?
My absolute favourite (NOT) is when people add an apostrophe *every*
time a plural is required. Hence, we get piano's, dog's, mice' and
womens's!!! Oh, and 1990's instead of 1990s.
I can feel my soapbox rising up beneath me...
This is why spelling, grammar and punctuation matter. If done correctly,
there can be no ambiguity or misunderstanding of what one is trying to
say. Look at the poster from earlier in the week (forget his name - the
bloke who was using a lot of phone-text forms - you know the one?) His
writing was barely understandable. Of course, *he* knew perfectly well
what he was trying to say, but few others did: we could only give
educated guesses at his exact meaning.
I think it's *grand* that grammar and punctuation are slowly being
reintroduced in schools! Both my parents left school at age fifteen, yet
both were excellent spellers and writers. Today's kids are every bit as
smart as that older generation and they *can* learn to spell well.
I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity
when various common names might be in use...
SG1
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
news:478898b9$0$12018$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
I use "Call lifeline they care"
0tterbot
news:47885af7$0$10313$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
everyone else got over the "yellow peril" idea decades ago.
kylie
0tterbot
(snip)
> I can feel my soapbox rising up beneath me...
<Writing properly out of respect for Trish's incipient conniption & the
subject matter involved ;-)
> This is why spelling, grammar and punctuation matter. If done correctly,
> there can be no ambiguity or misunderstanding of what one is trying to
> say.
This is what I tell my kids (particularly when double negatives are
involved!!!!) - that good grammar simply means _everyone ELSE knows what
you've said_. It makes sense & works for us.
Look at the poster from earlier in the week (forget his name - the
> bloke who was using a lot of phone-text forms - you know the one?) His
> writing was barely understandable. Of course, *he* knew perfectly well
> what he was trying to say, but few others did: we could only give educated
> guesses at his exact meaning.
>
> I think it's *grand* that grammar and punctuation are slowly being
> reintroduced in schools! Both my parents left school at age fifteen, yet
> both were excellent spellers and writers. Today's kids are every bit as
> smart as that older generation and they *can* learn to spell well.
I was of the generation who wasn't formally taught grammar - but mine's fine
(as with most of the generation, in fact, luckily). Which doesn't mean I'm
not pleased particular attention is being paid these days! Really, people
who have good grammar & spelling against all odds are most likely those who
read a lot - it's really the only way it happens. Well, being surrounded by
people with good grammar also helps, I must say. But, it can be learned,
too. DH's grammar was appalling until I insisted he work harder because the
way he used to speak just made him sound like a moron, & he's not. He still
can't spell to save his life, but that's not really my concern (his
customers don't deal with anything he's written; that's mostly my privilege
;-)
> I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
> understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity when
> various common names might be in use...
That's exactly right. Everyone agrees there has to be a common denominator
(as it were) in language.
Kylie
P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals <bg!>
Blackadder XXIV
news:ZOkij.2639$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> everyone else got over the "yellow peril" idea decades ago.
> kylie
No Kylie, its not paranoia. Its just a rational suggestion. I mean, whose
going to stop them? The Indonesians walked into East Timor in the 1970s. And
no one stopped them. The only reason they got pushed out - was because of
their economic and political problems
But give them enough time, and they will have the numbers to not just walk
in, but stay and create a nation of their own. Its just demographics.
Sure you could put a few thousand in detention. But you can' stop 1% of
Indonesia from coming over. Right now, they're population is at 200 million.
In 30 years time, apparently it will reach 278 million. If you were an
Indonesian, it would make sense to come over to Australia by hook or by
crook. It'd be a much better life for them.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm
Blackadder XXIV
No, the Romans didn't "try" aquaducts - they built and used them for
centuries.
http://www.inforoma.it/feature.php?lookup=aqueduct
It has been calculated that in imperial times, when the city's population
was well over a million, the distribution system was able to provide over
one cubic meter of water per day for each inhabitant: more than we are
accustomed to use nowadays.
The aquaduct system was physically destroyed by barbarians who invaded the
country.
FarmI
>> I'm not a retired teacher but I too get the collywobbles at some of the
>> more blatant abuses we see. "To" for "too" drives me crackers and
>> sometimes one even sees "two" for one of the others. The American habit
>> of writing/saying "tell someone who could care less" simply astounds me.
> What about 'I'm going out. Do you want to come with?'
haven't come across that one, but I doknow what my reaction to that would be
:-))
> Additionally, what about 'prolly' for 'probably' and 'congradulations' for
> 'congratulations' and 'walla' for 'voilà'?
And 'ass' for 'arse' - I tend to ask why they are into donkey abuse.
> My absolute favourite (NOT) is when people add an apostrophe *every* time
> a plural is required. Hence, we get piano's, dog's, mice' and womens's!!!
> Oh, and 1990's instead of 1990s.
Supermarkets seem to be good at that violation.
> I can feel my soapbox rising up beneath me...
>
> This is why spelling, grammar and punctuation matter. If done correctly,
> there can be no ambiguity or misunderstanding of what one is trying to
> say. Look at the poster from earlier in the week (forget his name - the
> bloke who was using a lot of phone-text forms - you know the one?) His
> writing was barely understandable. Of course, *he* knew perfectly well
> what he was trying to say, but few others did: we could only give educated
> guesses at his exact meaning.
>
> I think it's *grand* that grammar and punctuation are slowly being
> reintroduced in schools! Both my parents left school at age fifteen, yet
> both were excellent spellers and writers. Today's kids are every bit as
> smart as that older generation and they *can* learn to spell well.
Our daughter has always been able to spell well but her firiend whose
parents are both teachers has always struggled. I do think that some people
are more inclined to be good spellers than others although have absolutely
no proof to support that statement, just observation.
Did you catch the interesting show in the TV tonight about intelligence
testing? It was called "the Battle of the Brains". There was one
interesting snippet in that show. In Scotland, they found IQ tests done
decades ago by a large number of 11 year olds. They had tracked down many
of them (now in their late 70s/early 80s) and ran them through the same
test. They found that on average, their IQs had gone up 10 points.
I've always said that we (should) learn and continue to develop all through
life and I wouldn't mind betting that your parents did just that even if
they left school with a good education in just the basic 3Rs.
> I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
> understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity when
> various common names might be in use...
:-)) The trouble with Latin names, is that when I use them and I tend to do
so a lot, I always seem to be accused of being a snob or a know it all. I
used to explain to people that the more interested one in plants and
gardening, the more likely one is to seek out the sort of publications that
use botanical names and that reading such documents leads to using the
correct names. That explantion doesn't seem to wash with many people though
so I don't bother doing that so much these days. I just think 'Idiot!' to
myself. I'm getting old and intolerant.
George W. Frost
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
Not only with Latin names but, even when you use the proper names for a car
for example:
I own a Ford, would not bring a great response
yet, I own a 1969 Ford Mustang 427 Super Cobra Jet fastback, would bring a
huge response from the people who know, that the car I have is a special
model identified by its proper name.
I could be accused of being a snob, but I tend to believe that lucky would
be the more appropriate word.
However, if you use the proper Latin name for a plant, doesn't to me show
snobbery, but shows that you are intelligent enough to know your plants and
only passing on the information to others.
I went to a nursery with a photo of a plant I wanted to identify and was
given a Latin name, which he wrote down, so I looked it up and found it
wasn't what he said it was, so I posted a photo on a newsgroup and very
helpful people came up with the correct Latin name and the English name for
it
So, it pays to know the Latin name as well as the English name for any plant
George W. Frost
> "0tterbot" <s...@t.com> wrote in message
> news:ZOkij.2639$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> everyone else got over the "yellow peril" idea decades ago.
>> kylie
>
> No Kylie, its not paranoia. Its just a rational suggestion. I mean, whose
> going to stop them? The Indonesians walked into East Timor in the 1970s.
> And no one stopped them. The only reason they got pushed out - was because
> of their economic and political problems
Damn, and here I was thinking that Kylie was talking about the Yellow Peril
in Melbourne years ago.
> But give them enough time, and they will have the numbers to not just walk
> in, but stay and create a nation of their own. Its just demographics.
>
> Sure you could put a few thousand in detention. But you can' stop 1% of
> Indonesia from coming over. Right now, they're population is at 200
> million. In 30 years time, apparently it will reach 278 million. If you
> were an Indonesian, it would make sense to come over to Australia by hook
> or by crook. It'd be a much better life for them.
>
> http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm
The Indonesians are already here and with little Johnny giving them $1
billion for flood relief from the tsunami tells me that teh Govco are
bending over backwards to appease them
Your reference to 1970 and East Timor reminds me that Papua used to be be
called Dutch New Guinea, but is now known as Papua Indonesia
when did this happen?
Blackadder XXIV
I think in the past, we had a culture of self-education. People generally
yearned to better educate themselves, to learn to be more civil and genteel.
People generally had a sense of personal honor and people kept to their
word. Unfortunately, this honor system kept on getting abused.
Nowadays, we have a culture based on self-gratification and hedonism. Watch
MTV for awhile and you'll find out.
George W. Frost
You must be a Capitalist
I can't afford Pay TV
Trish Brown
>> I can feel my soapbox rising up beneath me...
>
> <Writing properly out of respect for Trish's incipient conniption & the
> subject matter involved ;-)
Why thank you, Otbot, dear! ;->
<snip>
> I was of the generation who wasn't formally taught grammar - but mine's fine
> (as with most of the generation, in fact, luckily). Which doesn't mean I'm
> not pleased particular attention is being paid these days! Really, people
> who have good grammar & spelling against all odds are most likely those who
> read a lot - it's really the only way it happens. Well, being surrounded by
> people with good grammar also helps, I must say. But, it can be learned,
> too. DH's grammar was appalling until I insisted he work harder because the
> way he used to speak just made him sound like a moron, & he's not. He still
> can't spell to save his life, but that's not really my concern (his
> customers don't deal with anything he's written; that's mostly my privilege
> ;-)
I don't want my kids to sound particularly uppah clahss (We're not!
We're so working class, it's not funny!) I want them to be eloquent and
articulate. I also want them to have easy access to their heritage in
all forms of its literature and art.
Just the other day, I was quoting 'The Man From Snowy River' at my
daughter *who had never heard it recited before*. How can it be that
such an icon of the Australian heritage can be left out of today's
education system? I can never read that poem without shedding a little
tear! Having been a horsewoman for most of my life, I can picture the
stripling's wild ride with such clarity, it hurts. I want my kids to be
able to share such experiences and also to communicate them to others.
I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or
punctuate because machines will do it for them. The art forms we call
'the novel' and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and
thus all the imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique
and therefore no longer have currency. How awful!
>
>> I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
>> understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity when
>> various common names might be in use...
>
> That's exactly right. Everyone agrees there has to be a common denominator
> (as it were) in language.
> Kylie
> P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals <bg!>
>
>
ROTFL! I guess it all comes down to learning about what matters to us,
doesn't it?
Trish Brown
<snip>
> And 'ass' for 'arse' - I tend to ask why they are into donkey abuse.
I'd love to know where that came from? (Should be 'whence that came' but
what the hell!) ;->
<snip>
>
> Our daughter has always been able to spell well but her friend whose
> parents are both teachers has always struggled. I do think that some people
> are more inclined to be good spellers than others although have absolutely
> no proof to support that statement, just observation.
Yes. Some people just have that kind of memory for words and
constructions. It doesn't mean that others shouldn't try, though.
Misspelling a difficult word is always forgivable, but misspelling
common, everyday words is just laziness.
>
> Did you catch the interesting show in the TV tonight about intelligence
> testing? It was called "the Battle of the Brains". There was one
> interesting snippet in that show. In Scotland, they found IQ tests done
> decades ago by a large number of 11 year olds. They had tracked down many
> of them (now in their late 70s/early 80s) and ran them through the same
> test. They found that on average, their IQs had gone up 10 points.
No, I missed it unfortunately. I think these things all come down to a
thirst for knowing things. People who like to know stuff never cease
learning, IMHO.
>
> I've always said that we (should) learn and continue to develop all through
> life and I wouldn't mind betting that your parents did just that even if
> they left school with a good education in just the basic 3Rs.
Oh yes! My Dad could add a column of figures in his head much quicker
than I could do it on a calculator (and he always described himself as
'only a butcher'). My Mum is 86 and she keeps her dictionary and her
atlas nearby at all times. It irritates her that political boundaries
keep changing and she has to keep re-learning the names and cities of
all the countries mentioned in the daily news. :-D
>
>> I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
>> understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity when
>> various common names might be in use...
>
> :-)) The trouble with Latin names, is that when I use them and I tend to do
> so a lot, I always seem to be accused of being a snob or a know it all. I
> used to explain to people that the more interested one in plants and
> gardening, the more likely one is to seek out the sort of publications that
> use botanical names and that reading such documents leads to using the
> correct names. That explantion doesn't seem to wash with many people though
> so I don't bother doing that so much these days. I just think 'Idiot!' to
> myself. I'm getting old and intolerant.
>
>
Ah, join the club! Whenever we go bush, I spend most of my day walking
along with my nose either on the ground looking at plants or in the air
looking at birds. My continual muttering of Latin names used to irritate
the family, but they've learned to tolerate it and even join in on the
easy ones. Of course it must be annoying to those who don't know the
Latin, but it's just my way of consolidating them in my mind and making
sure I continue to remember them. I majored in Taxonomy at Uni and it's
still hugely important to me to be able to classify things. LOL!
(Also, I think it's pretty neat that I'm using names assigned by people
like Sir Joseph Banks and Carl Solander over two hundred years ago...)
Blackadder XXIV
>
> You must be a Capitalist
> I can't afford Pay TV
Its on the regular channels occasionally. You can try ABC's Rage. Its on in
the weekends.
Terryc
> Looking at our situation today, Indonesia's population is increasing
> rapidly. 200 million + at the last count. I'd suspect that in about 30 or 50
> years time or so, their population will be about 500 million - and they'll
> come over and take this land.
lol, let me see if I understand this OT garbage. Millions of Indonesians
are going to leave their land of water surplus to suddenly invade a
land of very little water.
Not to mentionthe fact that they some how have to fit 500 million
Indonesians into that place in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Terryc
> The aquaduct system was physically destroyed by barbarians who invaded the
> country.
Sure? The country had died anyway well before the barbarians decided
they'd had enough of their lands being pillaged by yhe romans and
decided to return the favour.
FarmI
> P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals <bg!>
Well done Otter! Now you just have to use them, ya slack tart! :-))
BTW, could you e-mail me please? moura at bluemaxx and add the country code
at the end.
Fran
FarmI
> Just the other day, I was quoting 'The Man From Snowy River' at my
> daughter *who had never heard it recited before*. How can it be that such
> an icon of the Australian heritage can be left out of today's education
> system? I can never read that poem without shedding a little tear! Having
> been a horsewoman for most of my life, I can picture the stripling's wild
> ride with such clarity, it hurts. I want my kids to be able to share such
> experiences and also to communicate them to others.
Aaaaaah! A woman after my own heart! Not the horsewoman part, I'm an
indifferent rider, and always have been even though I love horses and sadly
on this farm they are no more. However, I do love poetry and the mere
mention of the Man from Snowy River can easily bring a tear to my eye.
My mother could recite poetry till the cows come home and I can remember
many a night when we would start to do the washing up and she would start to
recite. Lovely old poems like "Here she goes and there she goes", "King
John and the Abbot of Canterbury", "The Man from Snowy River", "The Geebung
Polo Club", "The man from Ironbark", and a personla favourite< "Pardon the
son of Reprieve". You've brought back some lovely memories.
Mum's memory was phenomenal but just sometimes it would fail her, so out
would come the poetry books while she looked up the small bit that had
slipped her mind. Once reminded off she would go again, but the poetry
books would draw her back till she spotted another old favourite and then
the washing up would be forgotten and while the water slowly congealed she's
recite poetry to us. This would go on for hours until she'd suddenly notice
the time and we would be packed off to bed while she had to continue the
washing up "alone and unassisted".
She too had been a wonderful horsewoman in her youth and since doing the
family history I've since learned that according to old family
members,"there wasn't a horse that she couldn't ride". I never knew that as
a child.
> I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
> before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or punctuate
> because machines will do it for them. The art forms we call 'the novel'
> and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and thus all the
> imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique and therefore
> no longer have currency. How awful!
Shudder! I hope not.
FarmI
>> :-)) The trouble with Latin names, is that when I use them and I tend to
>> do so a lot, I always seem to be accused of being a snob or a know it
>> all. I used to explain to people that the more interested one in plants
>> and gardening, the more likely one is to seek out the sort of
>> publications that use botanical names and that reading such documents
>> leads to using the correct names. That explantion doesn't seem to wash
>> with many people though so I don't bother doing that so much these days.
>> I just think 'Idiot!' to myself. I'm getting old and intolerant.
>
>
> Not only with Latin names but, even when you use the proper names for a
> car for example:
>
> I own a Ford, would not bring a great response
> yet, I own a 1969 Ford Mustang 427 Super Cobra Jet fastback, would bring >
> a huge response from the people who know, that the car I have is a
> special model identified by its proper name.
I have fond memories of a Ford Mustang of about that vintage :-))
Now we have lots of old Land Rovers which I find hard to get excited about
but we do have a few other old cars which I rather like.
>
> I could be accused of being a snob, but I tend to believe that lucky would
> be the more appropriate word.
> However, if you use the proper Latin name for a plant, doesn't to me show
> snobbery, but shows that you are intelligent enough to know your plants
> and only passing on the information to others.
>
> I went to a nursery with a photo of a plant I wanted to identify and was
> given a Latin name, which he wrote down, so I looked it up and found it
> wasn't what he said it was, so I posted a photo on a newsgroup and very
> helpful people came up with the correct Latin name and the English name
> for it
> So, it pays to know the Latin name as well as the English name for any
> plant
I find the uk.rec.gardening ng is a good one for seeing people who really
know their Latin names -leaves us Aussies for dead. I also notice that
about the British mags too which is why I always buy "The English Garden".
Their plant info is far better than any of the Aussie mags but i do
sometimes smile to myself. I was reading one article about Romneya and the
article said that it could become invasive. Given how sodding dry it's been
here for so many years, I thought "I wish!".
FarmI
(snip) I think these things all come down to a
> thirst for knowing things. People who like to know stuff never cease
> learning, IMHO.
I thinks so too. Curiosity is a wonderful learning aid.
>> I've always said that we (should) learn and continue to develop all
>> through life and I wouldn't mind betting that your parents did just that
>> even if they left school with a good education in just the basic 3Rs.
>
> Oh yes! My Dad could add a column of figures in his head much quicker than
> I could do it on a calculator (and he always described himself as 'only a
> butcher'). My Mum is 86 and she keeps her dictionary and her atlas nearby
> at all times. It irritates her that political boundaries keep changing and
> she has to keep re-learning the names and cities of all the countries
> mentioned in the daily news. :-D
I know jsut what she means!
>>
>>> I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
>>> understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity
>>> when various common names might be in use...
>>
>> :-)) The trouble with Latin names, is that when I use them and I tend to
>> do so a lot, I always seem to be accused of being a snob or a know it
>> all. I used to explain to people that the more interested one in plants
>> and gardening, the more likely one is to seek out the sort of
>> publications that use botanical names and that reading such documents
>> leads to using the correct names. That explantion doesn't seem to wash
>> with many people though so I don't bother doing that so much these days.
>> I just think 'Idiot!' to myself. I'm getting old and intolerant.
> Ah, join the club! Whenever we go bush, I spend most of my day walking
> along with my nose either on the ground looking at plants or in the air
> looking at birds. My continual muttering of Latin names used to irritate
> the family, but they've learned to tolerate it and even join in on the
> easy ones. Of course it must be annoying to those who don't know the
> Latin, but it's just my way of consolidating them in my mind and making
> sure I continue to remember them. I majored in Taxonomy at Uni and it's
> still hugely important to me to be able to classify things. LOL!
I wish I could classify things! it must be wonderful to be able to do that!
About as much as I can manage is to get out my Horticultural Dictionary and
look at individual leaf shapes and tree shapes and then try to identify
things from there. Very unsatisfactory and frustrating.
You might be interested in a book that I have found to be simply
fascinating. It's called "Life on forty acres" by Barry P. Moore. He
trained as a chemist but has an interest in biology and entomology and I
think his wife was a botanist. Tragically she was killed.
This book is about his 40 acre block and I wouldn't have believed that
anyone could make a book about 40 acres not too distant from Canberra, the
least bit interesting. If anyone had asked me, I'd have descibed it as
scrofulous boring country but that isn't how he sees it or describes it.
He covers everything on his block from the smallest insect to the Wedge
tailed eagle. And in such superb detail. I never thought I would be
interested in insects but he writes about them so well that I now look at
bugs in my own garden with a magnifying glass.
> (Also, I think it's pretty neat that I'm using names assigned by people
> like Sir Joseph Banks and Carl Solander over two hundred years ago...)
:-)) A true link with our past.
FarmI
Ooops. Sorry Kylie, forgot to mention to put the 'dot com' in before the
country code!
Fran
Terryc
> I wish I could classify things! it must be wonderful to be able to do that!
> About as much as I can manage is to get out my Horticultural Dictionary and
> look at individual leaf shapes and tree shapes and then try to identify
> things from there. Very unsatisfactory and frustrating.
It doesn't get better than that. What makes it easier is just doing it
frequently so you learn a few names.
John Savage
>"Trish Brown" <pmcb...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> George W. Frost wrote:
>>> <rai...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ld1co316kifsguab6...@4ax.com...
>>>> And they are all dead now...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia
>
>wasn't concerned with how others spelled it
aqua-plane
aque-duct
aqui-culture
All too confusing. Let's standardise and have them all begin "aqua".
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)
0tterbot
(snip)
> Just the other day, I was quoting 'The Man From Snowy River' at my
> daughter *who had never heard it recited before*. How can it be that such
> an icon of the Australian heritage can be left out of today's education
> system?
1: we have many "education systems", not just one :-)
2: it would certainly feature in some classes, but not others. the list of
available literature for schools is massive - from within that, teachers
decide.
3: i've heard it recited before & tbh, it does nothing for me. (one person's
classic is another's waste of time, it's just how it is :-) 99% of people
who know me cannot BELIEVE what my favourite book is. usually, i can't
believe theirs, either <g>
I can never read that poem without shedding a little
> tear! Having been a horsewoman for most of my life, I can picture the
> stripling's wild ride with such clarity, it hurts. I want my kids to be
> able to share such experiences and also to communicate them to others.
>
> I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
> before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or punctuate
> because machines will do it for them.
why would anyone make a machine to do that if _nobody_ knows (nor
presumably, cares)? that doesn't make sense.
The art forms we call
> 'the novel' and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and
> thus all the imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique
> and therefore no longer have currency. How awful!
it would be awful, but frankly i think you're being a little alarmist. the
death of novels & poems has been predicted but it is doubtful it will happen
(for one thing, if would-be video artists don't know the written word, how
would they be able to read the instructions? ;-) again tbh, i can foresee
worse than the disappearance of poems (which i generally consider to be one
of the worst forms of self-indulgence ;-) but even so, poets just keep
pumping them out! certainly the nature of performance and storytelling
changes (bards are a rare thing these days) but generally what we've always
had & presumably will continue to have are just different ways of people
telling their stories to others. the novel is nowhere near dead - there have
never been as many works of fiction (or for that matter, non-fiction)
available to so many people at once. mass literacy has brought that about &
people do value their literacy. i'd say the novel replaced bards & gossips &
"wise men" of old, video is akin to watching a play or a dance (although we
still have plays & dance performances - & again, more than ever).
lastly, not all of the "great" poets & writers really stand up these days
anyway. sometimes, things just lose currency. there's always a hardcore of
nerds who care about Brilliant Writer X, but not everything ages well.
<shrug>. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
came later. the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
published in modern, more discerning times.
>>> I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
>>> understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity
>>> when various common names might be in use...
>>
>> That's exactly right. Everyone agrees there has to be a common
>> denominator (as it were) in language.
>> Kylie
>> P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals <bg!>
>>
>>
>
> ROTFL! I guess it all comes down to learning about what matters to us,
> doesn't it?
gasp! i've forgotten my capitals for this one!!
thinking about gum trees, many of them have 5-10 "common" names. the place
of latin names (for the common folk) is to make clear exactly which one
you're referring to. also, lots of plants are _only_ known by their latin
names. i think people who are sensitive about others using latin names have
a generalised anxiety you can't address or change for them :-)
kylie
0tterbot
> "0tterbot" <s...@t.com> wrote in message news:WXkij.2641
>
>> P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals <bg!>
>
> Well done Otter! Now you just have to use them, ya slack tart! :-))
that's Slack Tart to you!!!!!!
> BTW, could you e-mail me please? moura at bluemaxx and add the country
> code at the end.
ok! i think i have seen your gate. i can't remember where it is, though.
kylie
>
> Fran
>
0tterbot
> And 'ass' for 'arse' - I tend to ask why they are into donkey abuse.
something that cracks me right up is:
have you heard that (yank) expression, that someone is a jackass? well, a
jackass is meant, of course, to be jackASS. but i've heard a few youngsters
saying jackarse, because they want to use the word but know how ridiculous
"ass" (as in arse) sounds in our accent! gosh it makes me laugh.
(internally, so as not to appear rude).
i don't worry as jackass is undoubtedly a short lived fad that will go away.
i'm not quite sure what a jackass is anyway. being an australian lover of
cricket, i have to wonder if it's related to a monkey or a bastard. <g!>
kylie
Trish Brown
0tterbot wrote:
> 1: we have many "education systems", not just one :-)
Yep! I'm in touch with other educators in every state and most share my
paranoia. (That is, 'most of those whom I know', not 'most of those who
exist'.)
> 2: it would certainly feature in some classes, but not others. the list of
> available literature for schools is massive - from within that, teachers
> decide.
Yep! My point is that classic Oz literature from Banjo Paterson, Henry
Kendall, CJ Dennis and so on ought to have a permanent place in schools
because they reflect a period of our development. I'm pretty fond of
John Marsden and other modern authors/poets too, but they don't come
from the pioneering era. Ever read Ethel Turner's books? They describe
pretty accurately what Oz kids did at the turn of the last century. We
oughtn't to pretend our history didn't happen!
> 3: i've heard it recited before & tbh, it does nothing for me. (one person's
> classic is another's waste of time, it's just how it is :-) 99% of people
> who know me cannot BELIEVE what my favourite book is. usually, i can't
> believe theirs, either <g>
Fair enough! Not gonna argue there! What *is* your favourite book, just
out of interest? I love finding a good read through other people! :-)
<snip>
>> I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
>> before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or punctuate
>> because machines will do it for them.
>
> why would anyone make a machine to do that if _nobody_ knows (nor
> presumably, cares)? that doesn't make sense.
Well, I've been in the computer industry on and off for - geez! - nearly
thirty years now! I've watched 'WYSIWYG', 'multi media', 'multi tasking'
and 'the information superhighway' arrive and take hold. I've seen
storage media change from 12" floppies that held 4k of info give way to
terabytes of storage. I've learned that technology does have massive
power to change what we do and how we do it. Kids today don't need to
spell, for example. The language they use to communicate on their phones
and MSN bears little resemblance to accepted English, yet they
understand each other perfectly. It's utilitarian, isn't it? Voice
recognition has taken a long time to come along in a useful form, but
it's nearly there. I can see a day when it'll no longer be necessary to
write what you want to say. Your computer will 'hear' your voice through
supermicrophones and transmit your info to someone else who will simply
listen to it and save it in audio format. Where's the need to write
anything? Just a suspicion I have...
>
> The art forms we call
>> 'the novel' and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and
>> thus all the imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique
>> and therefore no longer have currency. How awful!
>
> it would be awful, but frankly i think you're being a little alarmist. the
> death of novels & poems has been predicted but it is doubtful it will happen
> (for one thing, if would-be video artists don't know the written word, how
> would they be able to read the instructions? ;-) again tbh, i can foresee
> worse than the disappearance of poems (which i generally consider to be one
> of the worst forms of self-indulgence ;-) but even so, poets just keep
> pumping them out! certainly the nature of performance and storytelling
> changes (bards are a rare thing these days) but generally what we've always
> had & presumably will continue to have are just different ways of people
> telling their stories to others. the novel is nowhere near dead - there have
> never been as many works of fiction (or for that matter, non-fiction)
> available to so many people at once. mass literacy has brought that about &
> people do value their literacy. i'd say the novel replaced bards & gossips &
> "wise men" of old, video is akin to watching a play or a dance (although we
> still have plays & dance performances - & again, more than ever).
Yep! I hear what you're saying and respectfully keep my own counsel. :-)
D'you happen to like classical ballet? I think poetry is very like
ballet: it's stylised and has boundaries and rules, that's all. Not
everyone can write a poem; not everyone can perform a great ballet, but
they do have standards of excellence and neither is everyone's cup of tea...
Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon
and Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein,
an East German group.
>
> lastly, not all of the "great" poets & writers really stand up these days
> anyway. sometimes, things just lose currency. there's always a hardcore of
> nerds who care about Brilliant Writer X, but not everything ages well.
> <shrug>. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
> that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
> contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
> happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
> iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
> came later.
Hmmm... I think I can see your point. I have to say, though, that
'great' writers such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky etc etc are
often an acquired taste and come with age. I only managed to read 'The
Lord of the Rings' (generally regarded as one of the great modern
classics from the Days of My Youth) by putting it in the dunny and
reading it in short bursts. I can't *stand* Tolkein's inflated,
self-conscious writing style.
> the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
> others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
> outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
> published in modern, more discerning times.
LOL! I've often wondered what was the drug of choice among those ancient
prophets. I think the Bible stands alone, though, since it's pretty much
unique in its origins, history and purpose. It takes a certain kind of
mind to want to wade through much of its allegory and ancient forms.
> gasp! i've forgotten my capitals for this one!!
>
> thinking about gum trees, many of them have 5-10 "common" names. the place
> of latin names (for the common folk) is to make clear exactly which one
> you're referring to. also, lots of plants are _only_ known by their latin
> names. i think people who are sensitive about others using latin names have
> a generalised anxiety you can't address or change for them :-)
> kylie
Yeah, but did you know the taxonomy of gum trees has recently been
changed? Just to upset all our applecarts, I s'pose. In fact, a friend
who is a botanist in Texas broke the news to me. I was talking to her
about Angophoras and she gently corrected me, saying 'You mean
'Corymbia', don't you?' Apparently, the whole family Myrtaceae has been
revamped and 'fixed' so that many former Eucalyptus species now come
under 'Corymbia'. I think there's more info on the SGAP website.
Ack! Why do they do these things to us?
Again, thanks for a really enjoyable post and interesting point of view! :-D
Chookie
"0tterbot" <s...@t.com> wrote:
> <shrug>. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
> that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
> contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
> happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
> iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
> came later. the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
> others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
> outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
> published in modern, more discerning times.
The two books you're complaining about are translations, and a lot depends on
the skill of the translator. AFAIK most modern translations of the Bible have
not set beauty as an objective, unlike the translators of the KJV. Most set a
great deal of store on accuracy of translation (resulting in an
academically-useful but wooden text) or accuracy of vibe (where a lot of the
'foreign' bits are made less foreign -- my favourite example is a Yank
translation where King Saul "went to the bathroom" in the cave!) No doubt
translators of the Iliad have the same problems.
Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good. Most hip
new poetry is too hip to last imo.
--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
0tterbot
> Ooo! What a great post! Thanks for the considered reply! :-)
>
> 0tterbot wrote:
>
>> 1: we have many "education systems", not just one :-)
>
> Yep! I'm in touch with other educators in every state and most share my
> paranoia. (That is, 'most of those whom I know', not 'most of those who
> exist'.)
Well then, i probably think you're _all_ worrying a bit over nothing :-)
>> 2: it would certainly feature in some classes, but not others. the list
>> of available literature for schools is massive - from within that,
>> teachers decide.
>
> Yep! My point is that classic Oz literature from Banjo Paterson, Henry
> Kendall, CJ Dennis and so on ought to have a permanent place in schools
> because they reflect a period of our development.
I see. I don't necessarily disagree. (I LOVE "Mulga Bill's Bicycle"!!!!) but
really, I don't think it's the sort of thing you could spend an entire term
on, or anything like that. Certainly those things have historical
significance. Then again, so do other things. How does one choose?
One thing that drives me a bit bats is everyone dumping on schools & school
kids re the curriculum. I asked a recent year-12 what he studied in English
for his HSC & was promptly gobsmacked. They did 10-odd different things
which seemed to include a spot of comparitive media studies thrown in. I
didn't do my HSC (dropped out) but at my school you'd do one "biggie" a
term. One Shakespeare play, one English classic of some sort (sadly, Jane
Austen [blurghhh!] seems to have featured heavily), and something "modern"
(perhaps from the 1960s or 70s) & then you must have had to revise, or
something - truthfully, I only remember doing one thing in year 11 but we
must have filled up the time somehow with soemthing boring I've forgotten
about. Same with my kids' schedule for primary school - they cover so much
in the curriculum while at the same age I did virtually nothing in the same
time frame! So when people are saying kids "should" be doing this or that, I
would ask "what the hell do you want them to drop so they can fit it in?!"
We
> oughtn't to pretend our history didn't happen!
I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men. :-)
> Fair enough! Not gonna argue there! What *is* your favourite book, just
> out of interest? I love finding a good read through other people! :-)
It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing <g>
>> why would anyone make a machine to do that if _nobody_ knows (nor
>> presumably, cares)? that doesn't make sense.
>
> Well, I've been in the computer industry on and off for - geez! - nearly
> thirty years now! I've watched 'WYSIWYG', 'multi media', 'multi tasking'
> and 'the information superhighway' arrive and take hold. I've seen storage
> media change from 12" floppies that held 4k of info give way to terabytes
> of storage. I've learned that technology does have massive power to change
> what we do and how we do it. Kids today don't need to spell, for example.
> The language they use to communicate on their phones and MSN bears little
> resemblance to accepted English, yet they understand each other perfectly.
> It's utilitarian, isn't it?
But this is partly what set this thread going - the dude who wanted cuttings
didn't write "properly" for a newsgroup - he wrote sms-style. He didn't
write it "wrong" so much as he had the _context_ all wrong. I rarely send
sms because I just plain cannot be bothered - it's just so tedious to me, so
when I do, I abbreviate as much as I can. (Almost everyone does.) BUT - if a
person doesn't know a word, I can't see that it can be abbreviated sensibly
either. Everyone who uses sms has already had a good (hopefully) grounding
in Proper English (which changes with time anyway) beforehand, otherwise the
whole system falls down. People really do go on & on about this & I'm not
saying you're being silly or anything, but I cannot see the risk of people
"no longer" using good spelling or whatnot. In Australia, literacy is very
near total - unlike, say, 50 years ago when it simply was not. Literate
people play with language, deliberately. What you see with sms is really
just a by-product of mass literacy, in my view. It doesn't undermine or
particularly effect the standard English that everyone has to use in daily
life if they want to participate in society. IIUC, Braille (novels, say) for
good (older) readers is very, very abbreviated, otherwise things would
simply take too long to get through (the hand being so much slower than the
eye), but until you know what is being abbreviated, you need to learn full
spellings in order to understand the abbreviations. If I've got that wrong
about Braille I am happy to be corrected, but that's a good example, isn't
it?
Voice
> recognition has taken a long time to come along in a useful form, but it's
> nearly there. I can see a day when it'll no longer be necessary to write
> what you want to say. Your computer will 'hear' your voice through
> supermicrophones and transmit your info to someone else who will simply
> listen to it and save it in audio format. Where's the need to write
> anything? Just a suspicion I have...
Sounds a bit like that wacky modern invention, the "telephone". <g!>
Gawd, I sound like a technophile when really I'm a bit of a Luddite - but I
do strongly think people get worried about literacy somewhat unduly -
instead of enjoying the effects of mass literacy, they see it as further
excuse to get into a panic about the country going down the toilet.
> Yep! I hear what you're saying and respectfully keep my own counsel. :-)
> D'you happen to like classical ballet? I think poetry is very like ballet:
> it's stylised and has boundaries and rules, that's all. Not everyone can
> write a poem; not everyone can perform a great ballet, but they do have
> standards of excellence and neither is everyone's cup of tea...
I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to see
it. I approve of its existence :-) And I _did_ very much approve of poetry
when I was younger, but I just got over it. It's not that I think poetry is
bad or irrelevent - it's more part of a general gripe of mine about people
faffing about with the "arts" as though it makes them a better person, when
in truth the vast majority of them simply don't have enough talent or
relevence & are just being utterly self-indulgent.
> Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon and
> Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein, an
> East German group.
Ja, Rammstein. Cookie Monster got a new job & that's what it was <G!> sorry
;-) I think you bring up an interesting thing, though - poetry set to music
(i.e. a "song") will always have a far greater audience. I think there's a
human need for song but no corresponding great need for poetry. Or so it
seems to me.
> Hmmm... I think I can see your point. I have to say, though, that 'great'
> writers such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky etc etc are often an
> acquired taste and come with age. I only managed to read 'The Lord of the
> Rings' (generally regarded as one of the great modern classics from the
> Days of My Youth) by putting it in the dunny and reading it in short
> bursts. I can't *stand* Tolkein's inflated, self-conscious writing style.
Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-) I
wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is hard
to pick. The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile.
Dostoyevsky - actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on.
I'm sure we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)
> LOL! I've often wondered what was the drug of choice among those ancient
> prophets. I think the Bible stands alone, though, since it's pretty much
> unique in its origins, history and purpose. It takes a certain kind of
> mind to want to wade through much of its allegory and ancient forms.
I find it pretty interesting & i'm NOT a believer. & yes, mostly it's
interesting due to historical significance - not for its own sake. So that's
probably a different category again. But do I think it could be published
now? No - just not good enough. I'm pretty sure the Revelation is a record
of either a drug experience or a psychiatric event :-)
The bible doesn't stand alone so much as it stands with other religious
"classics". They're all a bit mental, but as you say, it's just a different
case.
> Yeah, but did you know the taxonomy of gum trees has recently been
> changed?
Yes. But fortunately, having known almost nothing about any of them under
the old classifications, the new ones therefore don't bother me!! :-D
Just to upset all our applecarts, I s'pose. In fact, a friend
> who is a botanist in Texas broke the news to me. I was talking to her
> about Angophoras and she gently corrected me, saying 'You mean 'Corymbia',
> don't you?' Apparently, the whole family Myrtaceae has been revamped and
> 'fixed' so that many former Eucalyptus species now come under 'Corymbia'.
> I think there's more info on the SGAP website.
>
> Ack! Why do they do these things to us?
>
> Again, thanks for a really enjoyable post and interesting point of view!
> :-D
Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!
Kylie
0tterbot
news:ehrebeniuk-A0DDC4.23363817012008@news...
> The two books you're complaining about
was i complaining? i thought i was just airing my views! sorry about that.
are translations, and a lot depends on
> the skill of the translator.
excellent point.
AFAIK most modern translations of the Bible have
> not set beauty as an objective, unlike the translators of the KJV.
i like the kjv. there IS no other bible!!!
Most set a
> great deal of store on accuracy of translation (resulting in an
> academically-useful but wooden text) or accuracy of vibe (where a lot of
> the
> 'foreign' bits are made less foreign -- my favourite example is a Yank
> translation where King Saul "went to the bathroom" in the cave!)
oh noooooooooooooooooooo...!
i don't suppose you happen to know what they did about onan "spilling his
seed upon the ground" **. (one shudders to think!)
No doubt
> translators of the Iliad have the same problems.
>
> Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good. Most
> hip
> new poetry is too hip to last imo.
probably, in the 16th century (etc) there was a lot of hip poetry that
didn't last :-)
kylie
** i must have been about 25 before i even worked out what that _meant_!!
FarmI
> i'm not quite sure what a jackass is anyway. being an australian lover of
> cricket, i have to wonder if it's related to a monkey or a bastard. <g!>
Jack = male, ass = donkey as opposed to a female donkey which is a Jenny,
but I don't think that there is such as thing as a Jennyass.
FarmI
> Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good.
Me too. Betjeman especially.
0tterbot
oh! i thought it must have been some sort of cross (like a mule or
something!)
don't we just say "jack" for a male donkey?
kylie
FarmI
>>
>>> i'm not quite sure what a jackass is anyway. being an australian lover
>>> of cricket, i have to wonder if it's related to a monkey or a bastard.
>>> <g!>
>>
>> Jack = male, ass = donkey as opposed to a female donkey which is a Jenny,
>> but I don't think that there is such as thing as a Jennyass.
>
> oh! i thought it must have been some sort of cross (like a mule or
> something!)
>
> don't we just say "jack" for a male donkey?
Dunno. I've only ever known one donkey on close terms and that wasn't one
of the words used for it. None of the words used is repeatable in polite
company.
Trish Brown
<snip>
> One thing that drives me a bit bats is everyone dumping on schools & school
> kids re the curriculum.
Oh, I *so* agree with you! Kids today have to assimilate everything we
did and then some. We never had computers to contend with, or media
studies or any of the trade courses they offer today. I have a young
friend who just sat for Engineering in his HSC! Mind you I have great
respect for the Mind of the Kid and believe they can suck up anything
you throw at them (within reason, of course). But as you say, everyone
seems to want schools to be all things and it's just not possible!
> I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
> literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men. :-)
Much as I might love for it to be otherwise, my history was white
anglo-celtic. My ancestors came to N'cle in 1835 and lived within the
confines of the towns. AFAICT, they had virtually no contact with
Aborigines and were merchants and farmers and glovers. I wish someone
*would* compile a local aboriginal history for those of us who'd love to
read it! I've rummaged through as much as I could at our local reference
library and there's sadly not much available. I think it had a lot to do
with the fact that Aborigines didn't write their history down and white
folks never thought to do it for them. There are a few tragic, tragic
stories about atrocities that happened a bit farther away from here
(Lake Macquarie area), but precious little about the tribes or how and
where they lived.
> It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing <g>
Not me! I love it too! Just listened to the Talking Book of it a few
weeks ago (bloody rotten eyesight!) Have you ever looked at 'Hornblower'
or 'Master and Commander' or any of the Wilbur Smiths? I'm in the middle
of re-reading all of those (no wonder the eyesight's so rotten...)
>
> But this is partly what set this thread going - the dude who wanted cuttings
> didn't write "properly" for a newsgroup - he wrote sms-style.
Oh, certainly. Except, he failed to make consideration for his audience.
He wasn't writing to his SMSing peers, he was writing to people who use
regular grammar and syntax *and who have no background in fonespeke*. If
you have something to say or want to ask for something, then it helps to
use a language your audience will be able to compute.
> Sounds a bit like that wacky modern invention, the "telephone". <g!>
Exactly. So portable, so efficient, so everywhere (can I say
'ubiquitous'?) The technology on computer is just a millifirkin away
from being ported over to phones and then away we'll go! Once everyone
has a phone-computer in his pocket, the skills that were once so vital
(reading, writing, 'rithmetic) won't have currency any longer. And hey!
I'm an old-fashioned teacher and it horrifies me that this could happen.
I'd love to stop it if I could, but change has to go with technology and
that's really a good thing, when you think about it.
>
> Gawd, I sound like a technophile when really I'm a bit of a Luddite - but I
> do strongly think people get worried about literacy somewhat unduly -
> instead of enjoying the effects of mass literacy, they see it as further
> excuse to get into a panic about the country going down the toilet.
Nah! Most people (like me) who whinge are getting old enough to loathe
change for its own sake. At a certain point in life (probably around
middle-age), you start looking back as well as forward. Suddenly,
history becomes more important to you as you begin to put your own life
into context. Next, you try to assist younger folk to see the history
with the same scale-free eyes that you do (my poor, *poor* kids!)
And do be fair! People who have lived a long time *do* know more in many
areas than those who haven't. Wisdom! It's a wonderful thing! If you can
acquire that along the way, then you're rich indeed!
> I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to see
> it. I approve of its existence :-)
ROTFL! I don't go because I couldn't afford to in a pink fit! I've loved
the ballet all my life and have never ever seen one performed live.
Snif. (We-ee-ell... if you count the appallingly horrible annual
concerts my daughter was involved in... I gotta tell you, there is *no*
pleasure to be had in watching Other People's Daughters romping around a
stage and obscuring your own!)
> And I _did_ very much approve of poetry
> when I was younger, but I just got over it. It's not that I think poetry is
> bad or irrelevent - it's more part of a general gripe of mine about people
> faffing about with the "arts" as though it makes them a better person, when
> in truth the vast majority of them simply don't have enough talent or
> relevence & are just being utterly self-indulgent.
Cynical! Read the words of Till Lindemann (google Rammstein: there's a
really good translaton site of theirs out there somewhere). And google
the song 'Democracy' by Leonard Cohen. It's pretty long, but I do love
the way he puts things (if you've just read 'Amerika' by Rammstein, it's
even more poignant).
>
>> Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon and
>> Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein, an
>> East German group.
>
> Ja, Rammstein. Cookie Monster got a new job & that's what it was <G!> sorry
> ;-) I think you bring up an interesting thing, though - poetry set to music
> (i.e. a "song") will always have a far greater audience. I think there's a
> human need for song but no corresponding great need for poetry. Or so it
> seems to me.
Please don't slag Rammstein! I'm a groupie! ;->
I think poetry appreciation is a learned art. An elderly schoolmistress
who was a friend of our family had me reciting Tennyson when I was only
four. She pointed out things like alliteration, onomatopeia and imagery
to me (in a very basic way, of course). And she read poetry to me in a
voice that made it all clear. This set me up for life! I've been a
poetry junkie for fifty years now and for me, poetry, art, dance and
music have very fuzzy lines between them. They capture our culture (such
as it is) and each of us can interpret the message in his own way.
That's the point of this whole discussion, though. You don't just read a
poem or look at a painting or hear a symphony in isolation. You need to
know the history it's depicting. I mean, how can you compare, say, Bach
and Rachmaninoff? Different! Ages apart! But both magnificent! Same with
Banjo Paterson and P!nk (another modern poet I'm rather fond of).
>
> Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-) I
> wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
> nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is hard
> to pick.
ROTFLMAO!!! I used to say that. However, better minds than mine seem to
think it's the equivalent of the Highly Boble - if so many others get so
much out of it, then who am I to say it's $#!+? ;->
> The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile.
> Dostoyevsky - actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on.
> I'm sure we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)
Of course! Mind you, I watched 'Bleak House' on the ABC and then, fired
with enthusiasm, read the book. It was great! Maybe I'm nearly old
enough to read Dickens...? :-D
> Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!
Well... it started out with Oz poetry and it does say 'aus' in the ng
title. I've put OT in the header, though. :-D
Chookie
Trish Brown <pmcb...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Yeah, but did you know the taxonomy of gum trees has recently been
> changed? Just to upset all our applecarts, I s'pose. In fact, a friend
> who is a botanist in Texas broke the news to me. I was talking to her
> about Angophoras and she gently corrected me, saying 'You mean
> 'Corymbia', don't you?' Apparently, the whole family Myrtaceae has been
> revamped and 'fixed' so that many former Eucalyptus species now come
> under 'Corymbia'. I think there's more info on the SGAP website.
>
> Ack! Why do they do these things to us?
Because our botany hasn't been studied for very long, we're still working
things out. Most eucalypts are still eucalypts.
0tterbot
Mind you I have great
> respect for the Mind of the Kid and believe they can suck up anything you
> throw at them (within reason, of course). But as you say, everyone seems
> to want schools to be all things and it's just not possible!
yes, i'm sure they're all right for now, but we have to draw the line
somewhere!! (and we need to stop it with the stupid criticism, too). it used
to particularly outrage me when ignoramuses such as the ex-p.m. were having
a go. boring and tiny-minded ideologues should stay out of public debates
until they show they have a passing acquaintence with what they're talking
about!!!
>
>> I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
>> literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men.
>> :-)
>
> Much as I might love for it to be otherwise, my history was white
> anglo-celtic. My ancestors came to N'cle in 1835 and lived within the
> confines of the towns. (snip) There are a few tragic, tragic stories about
> atrocities that happened a bit farther away from here (Lake Macquarie
> area), but precious little about the tribes or how and where they lived.
but i didn't ONLY mean aboriginal history, but non-white-male histories in
general - women, children, other immigrants, etc etc. people are now very
interested in non-white-male histories, but there aren't many to be had
because nobody thought these people were important or interesting. so as a
historical device, white mens' stories are of interest, but they also
highlight other stuff we can't know. all that man-from-snowy-river stuff is
considered "important" here in australia, but it leaves the lives of 99% of
people unrecorded entirely, iyswim! that's all. so therefore, i don't think
it's worth getting too sentimental about, really.
>> It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing <g>
>
> Not me! I love it too!
all right then - friends for life! ;-)
Just listened to the Talking Book of it a few
> weeks ago (bloody rotten eyesight!) Have you ever looked at 'Hornblower'
> or 'Master and Commander' or any of the Wilbur Smiths?
ah, no :-)
> Nah! Most people (like me) who whinge are getting old enough to loathe
> change for its own sake. At a certain point in life (probably around
> middle-age), you start looking back as well as forward. Suddenly, history
> becomes more important to you as you begin to put your own life into
> context. Next, you try to assist younger folk to see the history with the
> same scale-free eyes that you do (my poor, *poor* kids!)
>
> And do be fair! People who have lived a long time *do* know more in many
> areas than those who haven't. Wisdom! It's a wonderful thing! If you can
> acquire that along the way, then you're rich indeed!
i'm not having a go at old people!!!! i'm not sure why you thought that.
i do think you're right in that many have a tendency to whinge pointlessly
just because things are different with time (but it's always been that way).
er, if that's what you were saying, that is ;-) i rather hope that when i'm
old i'll be able to see the good as clearly. there WERE no "good old days",
there just never have been! every time has it's good & bad, life's just like
that. _that_ is what wisdom is - the ability to see clearly & use & share
knowledge (without feeling the urge to moan on about everyone else who is
younger than oneself ;-)
apparently, it's a necessary phase of life to be looking back in one's
dotage (in the same way the very young only look forward) but really, some
people take that much too far & it just becomes whingeing. i find camera
phones unspeakably loathesome in every way, but badgering everyone i know
with that opinion would not get me very far, would it? :-)
i was born in 1970, which means ALL MY LIFE i've had to sit by rolling my
eyes while people blah on about how fabulous the 1960s were & how anyone
younger than that has missed everything worthwhile and rah rah rah. god,
it's so boring!!!!!! but mostly, it's demonstrably untrue - you can't make
that claim of any era & it's foolish to even get started. if a person wants
to be a bore, they should at least aim to be a bore with a balanced
viewpoint ;-)
>> I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to
>> see it. I approve of its existence :-)
>
> ROTFL! I don't go because I couldn't afford to in a pink fit!
well, exactly!
I've loved
> the ballet all my life and have never ever seen one performed live.
i've only ever seen one, as a kid (a local production, so it probably wasn't
even all that good, although i thought it was wonderful!). still, it was a
very special experience! i feel a bit mortified that we can't take the kids
to more erm "high culture" stuff, but it's beyond the price range of almost
everyone, isn't it?
> Please don't slag Rammstein! I'm a groupie! ;->
and i think it's nice that there is something out there for everyone!
> I think poetry appreciation is a learned art. An elderly schoolmistress
> who was a friend of our family had me reciting Tennyson when I was only
> four. She pointed out things like alliteration, onomatopeia and imagery to
> me (in a very basic way, of course). And she read poetry to me in a voice
> that made it all clear. This set me up for life! I've been a poetry junkie
> for fifty years now and for me, poetry, art, dance and music have very
> fuzzy lines between them. They capture our culture (such as it is) and
> each of us can interpret the message in his own way. That's the point of
> this whole discussion, though. You don't just read a poem or look at a
> painting or hear a symphony in isolation. You need to know the history
> it's depicting. I mean, how can you compare, say, Bach and Rachmaninoff?
> Different! Ages apart! But both magnificent! Same with Banjo Paterson and
> P!nk (another modern poet I'm rather fond of).
as they say - comparisons are odious. (not to mention the fact that many
things are incomparable.) do you read the smh? if not, the other week,
grown-up adults were getting all bothered in trying to compare "high"
culture with "pop" culture & everyone convinced they alone are right
(really, beatles fans have a great deal to answer for when it comes to
de-braining cultural debates!! ... and yes, i think the beatles are
dreadfully overrated, too <g>.) anyway, simon tedeschi who is a lovely young
man who is very "high culture" without feeling that that makes him superior
in any way, made the best contribution on that score (which in effect was,
"these things are too different to try to compare, so talk yourselves
down!")
>> Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-)
>> I wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
>> nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is
>> hard to pick.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! I used to say that. However, better minds than mine seem to
> think it's the equivalent of the Highly Boble - if so many others get so
> much out of it, then who am I to say it's $#!+? ;->
well you can if you like, it's a free society <g> i don't think mass appeal
means something is "good", though. the sales figures that the top-selling
mills & boon (etc) titles get is enough to make literary novelists howl at
the moon, but again there wouldn't be any "comparison".
i did like "the hobbit" though. perhaps lotr is just a plot idea stretched
too far? i think the author, and those readers, like the aspects of a
fully-formed imaginary world with maps & languages etc etc a bit more than
they like the literary aspects? (just guessing).
>> The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile. Dostoyevsky -
>> actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on. I'm sure
>> we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)
>
> Of course! Mind you, I watched 'Bleak House' on the ABC and then, fired
> with enthusiasm, read the book. It was great! Maybe I'm nearly old enough
> to read Dickens...? :-D
maybe - but wasn't he a best-seller in his own time? there's no reason that
one should now have to be older to like it, necessarily.
>
>> Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!
>
> Well... it started out with Oz poetry and it does say 'aus' in the ng
> title. I've put OT in the header, though. :-D
nature is a poem, the magnificence of which words couldn't begin to
replicate!!!!!!!
:-D
on that pompous note....
(no, i really do believe that, but it's not a big deal, & i doubt anyone
else cares :-)
kylie