True dat

March 10, 2010 @ 12:22 pm · Filed by under Changing times

« previous post | next post »

"Nation Shudders At Large Block Of Uninterrupted Text", The Onion, 3/9/2010.

Then again…

March 10, 2010 @ 12:22 pm · Filed by under Changing times


10 Comments

  1. Aelfric said,

    March 10, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

    Sadly, this reminds me of something else I saw this morning, though this was (at least apparently) true. It seems a number of would-be Facebook users googled to find the Facebook login page, and instead came upon this blog post:

    http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php

    They then proceeded to leave many comments castigating Facebook for yet another change and requesting help logging in–to a page that is obviously a blog post about Facebook and not Facebook itself. While undoubtedly some of the posts are simply attempting to be funny, my belief that at least some of them are true makes me really wonder about information uptake on the old interwebs.

  2. J.D. said,

    March 10, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

    Finally I know why the 3,000+ page Harry Potter series remains such an obscurity.

  3. D.O. said,

    March 10, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

    I liked how many synonyms to "a solid block of uninterrupted text" they were able to squeeze in: chunk of print, unbroken string of English words, mass of black text, cascade of syllables, letter-upon-letter structure, mound of words, flood of sentences, virtual hailstorm of alternating consonants and vowels. The latter, of course, is anathema to linguists…

  4. Mr Fnortner said,

    March 11, 2010 @ 12:57 am

    I thought the Onion article ran a little long, myself.

  5. Adam said,

    March 11, 2010 @ 5:43 am

    The "Balm in Gilead" Language Log column questions Camille Paglia's blaming TV & video games for problems with concentration and study. I'm not a Paglia fan, but Aric Sigman's book Remotely Controlled has a lot of evidence to corroborate this. In particular, modern TV shows are worse for the brain than old TV shows and films, because of the rapid editing style (influenced by and influencing video games).

    [(myl) I think it might be better to say that the book "has a lot of assertions to corroborate this". See the badscience.net article "How Aric Sigman distorts the scientific evidence to mislead you", 2/24/2009.]

    @Mr Fnortner: at least the Onion article has a big picture of a confused man at the top to clarify things. ;-)

  6. TootsNYC said,

    March 11, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

    Paglia's argument reminds me of what people used to say in the 1120's: "These kids today don't want to do any hard work!"

  7. Dan T. said,

    March 11, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

    There's always something that's corrupting the minds of young people, whether it's comic books or rock 'n' roll or TV or social networking sites.

  8. TootsNYC said,

    March 12, 2010 @ 11:25 am

    Back in college, for a "self-guided" study, I did a short paper on how commentary reacts to new media. The advent of the printing press was treated as a disaster–it was going to corrupt our culture, especially young people, by exposing them to things that weren't good for them.

    Newspapers were going to corrupt youth by bringing them news of horrible things in other places.

    The advent of radio was hailed as corrupting because young people would listen to sensational dramas, and they'd be glued to the radio set.

    The advent of serial novels, etc.

    I started w/ radio (bcs I did know about that "controversy," and worked my way back in time, but I remember being stunned that the same arguments ("it'll expose them to violence," "it's too permissive," "it's too distracting and interferes with their concentration on the *important* things") were used for the printing press.

  9. JimG said,

    March 12, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

    Kids?
    Why can't they be like we were, perfect in every way?

  10. Aaron Davies said,

    March 12, 2010 @ 11:34 pm

    tldr

RSS feed for comments on this post