First one is silly — there is no “face” of the party.
Second one is obscure to me. Presumably, some sort of American Football reference.
Third one is vitiated by Trump having previously endorsed another candidate who then failed.
(Also, back in the day, it used to be that a picture was worth a thousand words; to be able to manage it in mere hundreds is an order of magnitude more efficient)
Steve Morrisonsays
#1: Indeed, sometimes the saying equated a picture with ten thousand words!
There were clues for you in the previous post Juan Ramón. Reread the paragraphs immediately before and after the embedded YouTube.
John Moralessays
💩:
Captain Hyperliteralism strikes again. “Stupid cartoonists! Parties don’t have faces!”
Stupid professional misunderstander and misapprehender gets it very wrong again. I know, it’s your thing to address the caricature of me that you so obviously artificially create, rather than any substance of anything I write.
If the Republican Party had a face right now, it would be an orange one.
There were clues for you in the previous post Juan Ramón.
It is quite stupid of you to imagine I don’t perfectly understand the claim at hand. You don’t even get my comments were to the merits of the claim rather than to what you imagine is its obscurity to me.
Anyway, for the umpteenth time, you’ve latched on to my revealing my natal name, and for the umpteenth plus one time I say to you: O snipely coward, care to give me your own natal name? I will happily reciprocate.
You, of course, are SmegmaBobble.
Reread the paragraphs immediately before and after the embedded YouTube.
<snicker>
So, SmellyBog. Time for a bit of fun with you, O snippy yippy puppy.
Notice that hundreds of words of plaintext compress rather well, to the degree that a cartoon such as those depicted would be the equivalent of at least several hundred words if similarly compressed.
Or, alternatively, notice how any written proposition can be depicted as a single picture. The only difference is the type of image, not that it’s an image.
Or, don’t notice. After all, only hyperliteral people notice these things, right?
—
Bonus: for the umpteenth plus one time and yet again I ask you what it is you imagine the difference between being literal and being hyperliteral may be, that you ascribe the latter rather than the former to you.
I remember when part of your efforts to engage with me as part of your obsessive behaviour included claims of me being too allusive and elliptical and obscure and so forth — you know, sorta kinda the opposite of literalness, but hey, consistency was never your forte, any more than engaging after sniping.
birgerjohanssonsays
The upper image: the “shaman” har fused with the grinch (why does spell check think the grinch is French?) and is trying to do a cosmetic makeover.
Holmssays
First one says it best in my book.
(Anyone that can read context knows what is being said there.)
John Moralessays
(Anyone that can read context knows what is being said there.)
But intead of a few tens of bytes, it takes 1.4 megabytes to say it, such as it is.
And it still employs words! Worst of both worlds.
(Which is a rather silly thing to say, since the speaker of the house is not the face of the republican party, contrary to the claim at hand.)
Holmssays
What idiot measures such things in data size?
John Moralessays
Anyone in IT, Holms.
Holmssays
Sorry, I forgot you can’t interpret text in any contextually aware, non-literal sense. Ahem.
What idiot measures such things -- text versus image, and their relative ability to convey a meaning -- in data size?
John Moralessays
Holms:
Sorry, I forgot you can’t interpret text in any contextually aware, non-literal sense. Ahem.
To forget something, you have to have known it.
So I can’t accept your mistaken apology.
Be aware that imagining a straw dummy is no substitute for knowledge, outside Gettier cases of course. 😉
(That you are a sorry specimen I can’t deny, however)
What idiot measures such things — text versus image, and their relative ability to convey a meaning — in data size?
Well, the kind that writes stuff like “Cartoonists can often make a point that it takes me hundreds of words to capture” — as in, one cartoon is worth hundreds of words.
Confusing cardinality and content is not itself idiotic… but not being able to grasp that is what is occurring, well.
(Not exactly using informational entropy as the measurement of conciseness, is it?)
Holmssays
“To forget something, you have to have known it.”
Check.
Hm.
First one is silly — there is no “face” of the party.
Second one is obscure to me. Presumably, some sort of American Football reference.
Third one is vitiated by Trump having previously endorsed another candidate who then failed.
(Also, back in the day, it used to be that a picture was worth a thousand words; to be able to manage it in mere hundreds is an order of magnitude more efficient)
#1: Indeed, sometimes the saying equated a picture with ten thousand words!
And they’re already turning on him because he spoke honestly on the reality of systemic racism in the United States after the murder of George Floyd.
@ Morales
Captain Hyperliteralism strikes again. “Stupid cartoonists! Parties don’t have faces!” X-D
There were clues for you in the previous post Juan Ramón. Reread the paragraphs immediately before and after the embedded YouTube.
💩:
Stupid professional misunderstander and misapprehender gets it very wrong again. I know, it’s your thing to address the caricature of me that you so obviously artificially create, rather than any substance of anything I write.
If the Republican Party had a face right now, it would be an orange one.
It is quite stupid of you to imagine I don’t perfectly understand the claim at hand. You don’t even get my comments were to the merits of the claim rather than to what you imagine is its obscurity to me.
Anyway, for the umpteenth time, you’ve latched on to my revealing my natal name, and for the umpteenth plus one time I say to you: O snipely coward, care to give me your own natal name? I will happily reciprocate.
You, of course, are SmegmaBobble.
<snicker>
So, SmellyBog. Time for a bit of fun with you, O snippy yippy puppy.
Notice that hundreds of words of plaintext compress rather well, to the degree that a cartoon such as those depicted would be the equivalent of at least several hundred words if similarly compressed.
Or, alternatively, notice how any written proposition can be depicted as a single picture. The only difference is the type of image, not that it’s an image.
Or, don’t notice. After all, only hyperliteral people notice these things, right?
—
Bonus: for the umpteenth plus one time and yet again I ask you what it is you imagine the difference between being literal and being hyperliteral may be, that you ascribe the latter rather than the former to you.
I remember when part of your efforts to engage with me as part of your obsessive behaviour included claims of me being too allusive and elliptical and obscure and so forth — you know, sorta kinda the opposite of literalness, but hey, consistency was never your forte, any more than engaging after sniping.
The upper image: the “shaman” har fused with the grinch (why does spell check think the grinch is French?) and is trying to do a cosmetic makeover.
First one says it best in my book.
(Anyone that can read context knows what is being said there.)
But intead of a few tens of bytes, it takes 1.4 megabytes to say it, such as it is.
And it still employs words! Worst of both worlds.
(Which is a rather silly thing to say, since the speaker of the house is not the face of the republican party, contrary to the claim at hand.)
What idiot measures such things in data size?
Anyone in IT, Holms.
Sorry, I forgot you can’t interpret text in any contextually aware, non-literal sense. Ahem.
What idiot measures such things -- text versus image, and their relative ability to convey a meaning -- in data size?
Holms:
To forget something, you have to have known it.
So I can’t accept your mistaken apology.
Be aware that imagining a straw dummy is no substitute for knowledge, outside Gettier cases of course. 😉
(That you are a sorry specimen I can’t deny, however)
Well, the kind that writes stuff like “Cartoonists can often make a point that it takes me hundreds of words to capture” — as in, one cartoon is worth hundreds of words.
Confusing cardinality and content is not itself idiotic… but not being able to grasp that is what is occurring, well.
(Not exactly using informational entropy as the measurement of conciseness, is it?)
“To forget something, you have to have known it.”
Check.
Mate.