He had dark, disheveled hair and a receding hairline. No eyeglasses. Looked to be in his late 40s or early 50s.
Casual shirt, long-sleeved, a dark blue and gray checkered pattern with white. Not a pullover. The kind that you have to use buttons. Buttons all the way down the front center. Left the collar open by not using the button at the collar line--like you'd expect from almost anyone that wears that kind of shirt. A shirt made from natural fabric, I'd say. Cotton or wool. It kind of sagged--didn't look like any of the synthetic fabrics that I am familiar with. It wasn't Perma Press. The kind of shirt that you would probably be inclined to press from time to time, using an iron set to Low. I couldn't see down far enough to say what kind of trousers.
YOU COULD CLICK TO ENLARGE THE IMAGE, BUT WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
He was at the front of the room, in front of the microphone, and smiling. They were referring to him as a "filmmaker" and "actor". I think he's a "fart". A fart with a movie title. Two titles, actually. Filmmaker and actor.
That's all I can tell you.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-26-2016).]
Thought somebody else would have "checked in" here by now.
Referring back to my "Quentin Tarantino" post (last "rinselberg" before this one), that--in case anyone is confused (which I doubt)--is what the science of human languages boffins describe as "semantic ambiguity". How (precisely) does the reader, or the person who is listening, or an English language interpreting software program parse the input string or utterance that is "Describe a fart with a movie title."..?
I can't believe it. Someone has just taken the centuries old tradition of describing a fart with a movie title and turned it completely on its head, and the world seems hardly to have noticed. Has the the last vestige of realism faded from The View? Is the triumph of Reality TV over Realpolitik now complete? Do I hear a $1000? How about the man in the Nehru jacket?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-25-2016).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: "semantic ambiguity". How (precisely) does the reader, or the person who is listening, or an English language interpreting software program parse the input string or utterance
True, though in informal situations I sometimes ignore the apostrophe in it's. Kind of because to me its another English rule that is almost nonsensical. You add an apostrophe when "it" owns something, AND when you put together "it" and "is". Usually I say "it is", but was lazy today.
The Sound of Music (hiding in plain sight) All Quiet (now) On The Western Front (historical interest; irony) Lethal Weapon (action; special effects) Gone In 60 Seconds (see Lethal Weapon) From Here To Eternity (philosophy; theologism) The Bedford Incident (elevated by the accompanying wall poster artwork category) An Inconvenient Truth (politics, science, cultural anthropology and semiotics) As Good As It Gets (“perv” category) The Talented Mr. Ripley (Rip ley, for deftly exploiting an established form of vernacular reference)
I favored my own submissions (surprise, surprise) but I did honor some of the offerings from the others on board here
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-27-2016).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Honestly, once you start looking... its like they did it on purpose!
Pareidolia
A word that you have not unlikely already encountered, in discussions of how people respond to certain visual stimuli. Seeing faces in cloud formations or inexplicable objects in the closeup photo imagery from the surface of Mars. I am taking it into the area of linguistics: the semantics and cognition associated with human languages. I hardly think that I could be breaking new ground with this. But I have seen the term used in the first kind of scenario (visual data and photo imagery). Not (that I remember) in this context.
It's a word that is likely to be brandished (concealed carry?) by psychologists (cognitive; behavioral) and neuropsychologists. But you probably already knew that.
..
