mardi, octobre 25, 2005
lost in translation
im not like someone, who oogles at the his eyebrows. yeah, first thing i liked about him was his way of speech. i like it when people have alot to say and can't wait to say it all. but he must be so used to giving speeches.
he talks, non-linearly, which is very important to me. his sentences, are long, have many sections, many constructs, many loopbacks, many add-on points.
his jokes, why are they funny? they are just little annecdotes on real-life happenings. they contain the balance of seriousness, joviality and twist to make it a little laugh. i absolutely dislike prepared jokes, because, simply because they mean nothing. there is no worth in laughing at something infantile and pointless.
abt ppl who embarrass themselves. one would muse in disbelief at what one could possibly encounter in this world. one wonders deeply. it's one thing to hear about someone doing something stupid, it's another thing to see it actually happen. in disbelief. it's, really, shocking. i liken it to learning that 1+1=3 is wrong. and after many years more of education, seeing someone actually stand up and ask if 1+1 is equal to 3.
i don't know what to feel. perhaps, perhaps it's like after all that pressure that those overseas scholars in nus mugging so hard, u find out that some of them are probably not as smart in other aspects of life.
the title of the lecture was "How to win a nobel prize". and there were actually people who, during the Q&A, asked how to win, asked whether what they did was right. one guy even asked sth like, i've got this cure, can i get a nobel prize. some cure for hypertension, if i din hear wrongly. it was only at his 2nd or 3rd repeating that i deduced it was a hypothetical situation. alors, i allow some possibility of misunderstanding due to translation problems.
sigh. wasn't it obvious. wasn't the title just a little joke. didn't anyone understand. didn't they understand. all his jokes abt winning nobel prize, all the ribbing, all the references. i then realised people actually came expecting an answer on how to win a nobel prize. someone even asked how they select someone to win, hah. *shakes head*
particularly surprised that he openly denounced creationism's fight against Evolution. amused. well, guess he's above the argument, untouchable, immunity. amused amused. science and religion. unfortunately: No Comment.
which of course, one might infer, No Comment = taking one particular side of the argument. there's not really a middle ground. just that it gives the appearance of a middle ground. or perhaps a refusal to declare one's stand is a way of declaring it without giving opportunity/evidence for accusation.
amused amused. what a long post.
lost in translation
Professor Sydney Brenner.
im not like someone, who oogles at the his eyebrows. yeah, first thing i liked about him was his way of speech. i like it when people have alot to say and can't wait to say it all. but he must be so used to giving speeches.
he talks, non-linearly, which is very important to me. his sentences, are long, have many sections, many constructs, many loopbacks, many add-on points.
his jokes, why are they funny? they are just little annecdotes on real-life happenings. they contain the balance of seriousness, joviality and twist to make it a little laugh. i absolutely dislike prepared jokes, because, simply because they mean nothing. there is no worth in laughing at something infantile and pointless.
abt ppl who embarrass themselves. one would muse in disbelief at what one could possibly encounter in this world. one wonders deeply. it's one thing to hear about someone doing something stupid, it's another thing to see it actually happen. in disbelief. it's, really, shocking. i liken it to learning that 1+1=3 is wrong. and after many years more of education, seeing someone actually stand up and ask if 1+1 is equal to 3.
i don't know what to feel. perhaps, perhaps it's like after all that pressure that those overseas scholars in nus mugging so hard, u find out that some of them are probably not as smart in other aspects of life.
the title of the lecture was "How to win a nobel prize". and there were actually people who, during the Q&A, asked how to win, asked whether what they did was right. one guy even asked sth like, i've got this cure, can i get a nobel prize. some cure for hypertension, if i din hear wrongly. it was only at his 2nd or 3rd repeating that i deduced it was a hypothetical situation. alors, i allow some possibility of misunderstanding due to translation problems.
sigh. wasn't it obvious. wasn't the title just a little joke. didn't anyone understand. didn't they understand. all his jokes abt winning nobel prize, all the ribbing, all the references. i then realised people actually came expecting an answer on how to win a nobel prize. someone even asked how they select someone to win, hah. *shakes head*
particularly surprised that he openly denounced creationism's fight against Evolution. amused. well, guess he's above the argument, untouchable, immunity. amused amused. science and religion. unfortunately: No Comment.
which of course, one might infer, No Comment = taking one particular side of the argument. there's not really a middle ground. just that it gives the appearance of a middle ground. or perhaps a refusal to declare one's stand is a way of declaring it without giving opportunity/evidence for accusation.
amused amused. what a long post.
<< Home