Hi

[Luanza]

My name is Mary, I'm a post graduate student at Dublin City University. I'm interested in (movies of course) and online communities and consumer cultures.

As part of my course I am studing netnography and online communities. I am especially interested in areas of a social research and in understanding consumer motivations. I've joined this group to observe and help understand this community.

Cheers,
Mary

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:35:47 AM UTC-5, Luanza wrote:

> My name is Mary, I'm a post graduate student at Dublin City University. I'm interested in (movies of course) and online communities and consumer cultures.
>
> As part of my course I am studing netnography and online communities. I am especially interested in areas of a social research and in understanding consumer motivations. I've joined this group to observe and help understand this community.
>

Good luck with that . . .

[moviePig]

Heisenberg tells us that the observer alters the observed, and verse-
vica. So, both should beware...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:59:24 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> Heisenberg tells us that the observer alters the observed, and verse-
> vica. So, both should beware...
>

I am constantly Planck-ed by how Heisenberg's theory has been utterly misrepresented by "pop" interpretations. The observer changes the observed when the observed exists on the sub-atomic level and the observer bombards it with gamma rays. The theory has no counterpart in the "real" world. Didn't you see "Blow-Up"?

[moviePig]

But everything exists on the sub-atomic level, inasmuch as the whole
is equal to the sum of its particles. Yeah, I saw BLOW-UP, but my
knowledge of physics then was little beyond where Newton's apple
landed. Did it actually go all quantum and stuff?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:14:27 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>
> But everything exists on the sub-atomic level, inasmuch as the whole
> is equal to the sum of its particles.

But not the uncertainty principle. If I hit you in the head with an apple, I know both your speed and location. There is no uncertainty at all.

Yeah, I saw BLOW-UP, but my
> knowledge of physics then was little beyond where Newton's apple
>landed. Did it actually go all quantum and stuff?
>

The film can be read as observing something not only doesn't change anything, it may not even confirm that something, eg, the murder. I was kind of kidding in my original post but it's just another in a long line of pet peeves that I have leashed under the porch. You know that goes . . .

[moviePig]

On Nov 17, 12:21 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:14:27 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>
> > But everything exists on the sub-atomic level, inasmuch as the whole
> > is equal to the sum of its particles.
>
> But not the uncertainty principle. If I hit you in the head with an apple, I know both your speed and location. There is no uncertainty at all.

Well, there's a little bit (...or, more precisely, a little little
little little little little little little little little little little
little little little little little little little little bit).

> Yeah, I saw BLOW-UP, but my> knowledge of physics then was little beyond where Newton's apple
> >landed.  Did it actually go all quantum and stuff?
>

> The film can be read as observing something not only doesn't change anything, it may not even confirm that something, eg, the murder. I was kind of kidding in my original post but it's just another in a long line of pet peeves that I have leashed under the porch. You know how that goes . . .

And, sure, just as Feynman promises we all are, I may be wrong in my
tenuous grasp of quantum physics/philosophy ...but I promise it ain't
from a lazy lack of attention.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:48:45 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> And, sure, just as Feynman promises we all are, I may be wrong in my
> tenuous grasp of quantum physics/philosophy ...but I promise it ain't
> from a lazy lack of attention.
>

But we must maintain the integrity of the wrongness so that when the rightness arrives we can clearly contrast where we were wrong instead of arriving at the rightness and no longer remembering what it was that the rightness had illuminated as wrong. We'll end up replaying death bed where the ghost of Gertrude Stein whispers, "what was the question?"

[moviePig]

I'll bet Gertrude wasn't asking, but rather answering: "'What?' was
the question."

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:39:50 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> I'll bet Gertrude wasn't asking, but rather answering: "'What?' was
> the question."
>

I'm uncertain of that. And of all things Stein.

[nick]

On Nov 17, 10:45 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:

Perhaps she can help us work through our unhealthy fixation with
arguing about Atlas Shrugged and Woody Allen. It's not something
normal people do a lot of.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:03:44 PM UTC-5, nick wrote:

>
> Perhaps she can help us work through our unhealthy fixation with
> arguing about Atlas Shrugged and Woody Allen. It's not something
> normal people do a lot of.

"Our," I don't think so. A certain individual has a need for that and hopefully he's gone.

[Joan in GB-W]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d62d637-8354-4a71...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------

And I hope she doesn't get bogged down with politics.

[moviePig]

On Nov 17, 11:17 pm, "Joan in GB-W" <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote:
> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Politics? Nah, not in these our halcyon days of respite and
reconciliation...