Monday, May 4, 2015

CNN person

Whenever this exchange was brought to my attention today I kept wanting to push the woman's hair away from her face. It bugs me. The way her hair frames her face, that's long to begin with. She gives her face a long hair frame. Why does she want that? I cannot feel it. I imagine wearing that hair and that hair touching my own neck and the sensation of spiders crawling all over takes over. But I am not complaining because I don't have to wear it nor watch, rather, I come with suggestions. Let's look. But not just push it away, chop it.


File titled cnn person


 

41 comments:

chickelit said...

It took her (or her hairdresser) hours to get it to stay that way! Can't you excuse her just a bit or defend her use of hairspray?

chickelit said...

Her hairstyle is supposed to mimic a hijab. I believe it's called a "hibob" (stress on the second syllable). It's all the rage, don't you know.

rcommal said...

No.

I say no.

rcommal said...

Chip doesn't get to decide for everyone, and nor do you, chickelit.

Cut the crap.

rcommal said...

Nor do I get to.

rcommal said...

This is a silly conversation that allows space for bonding together people.

I remember that and how it worked, back in the day.

I suggest that you guys do not, although for the moment I'll reserve judgment as to whether that's accidental or with purpose.

chickelit said...

@rcommal: I respect your veto, but I am unswayed. I believe everyone gets to decide.

Maybe Chip should do a poll?

chickelit said...

I suggest that you guys do not, although for the moment I'll reserve judgment as to whether that's accidental or with purpose.

I'd like a link to the CNN conversation, but not bad enough to chase it down. I'm not in the habit of watching CNN I just assumed that the woman on the left was giving Pam Geller a hard time. If I'm wrong about that, then my second comment was off-base.

chickelit said...

But I, like everyone my age, have watched CNN from the beginning and sort of known their arc, even if only secondhand these days.

chickelit said...

I listened to NPR tonight on the car radio and was struck by how damn interesting their non-news stories are. But boy, the second they start talking about politics...

They had a Frenchman on -- a survivor from the Charlie Hebdo massacre-- and I swear they were guilt tripping him.

rcommal said...

"gets to decide"

decide "what"/decide "that"

Which, chickelit?

chickelit said...

Neither. Not "what" nor "that" but rather "for". We three don't get to decide "for" others. But that's obvious, isn't it?

rcommal said...

I believe everyone gets to decide.

rcommal said...

^ I quoted you.

chickelit said...

Quit being so circular, rcommal.

Any reader of this thread should see that:

@rcommal: I respect your veto, but I am unswayed. -- referred to your saying "no."

I believe everyone gets to decide.

meant that I agreed with you.

I believe you owe me an explanation as to what you were so emphatically saying no to. What was the question? Whether the hair needed cutting??

rcommal said...

OK, my bad. I misunderstood your "gets to decide."

Had I consulted with my almost 15-year-old, he surely would have alerted me that I know shit from shinola about what people say nowadays, grammar notwithstanding. He knows, whereas I do not, that "gets to decide" is a complete statement, Grammar be damned, in the Internet world.

rcommal said...

What ever happened to "gets to decide [something]" or "gets to make a decision [about something]"?

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

I deleted my last comment because I put it in the wrong thread.

chickelit said...

From "get" is much expected: link to definitions.

rcommal said...

chickelit:

I'm going to state something plain, here, and it has to do with crappy things that result from people being so sure that they've got it right. The problem is that people are so sure about things and that people are so sure that they've got everything right.

rcommal said...

I know that I don't get to make anything personal, by the way--

even though all of you guys do, and have, for ye so many Internet years--

; )

Well, hey, so it goes.

Chip Ahoy said...

This "get" thing is a problem for interpreters too. I see it all the time with students on YouTube. You can tell they stall on the English word and they worked to get (!) at its intended meaning. "Get" is both hands grabbing one hand directly atop the other. It's a common graphic grabby pull-into-your-body "get". But that is not what is usually intended, "understand" is more likely, or "allow" or "permit" sometimes it means taken upon oneself as get sick from someone other times "receive" get a trophy, or "arrive at" as the students do. It's what makes interpreting so brain-wracking to do for a long period, it really does give you a headache, and there goes all the fun right there, just paying attention constantly thinking, "what does this even mean?" It's hard to keep it up because your mind cannot wander nor think other happy things like food or sex or puppies it must stick right there like a thought-slave. It's not very fun.

I saw a similar thing to "get" six times today with the phrase "worn out." It's in the lyrics for Mad World. This song turns out to have been interpreted dozens of times.
Worn out places
Worn out faces
They're talking about school. How worn out can they be?
Most the kids chose the sign for "old" and that is not a good choice. I think.
Better to say "wear" and do it tattered and tiredly. Or "tired." Or, "boring."
All would be more suitable than "old" because the song is about the seeming madness and boredom and insecurity a student feels. That's why it's such a popular song with students. Nothing is actually goat-beard-growing old, so that sign is out.

Then I wondered, why is the version ALL of them use twice as slow as mine? It sounds horribly depressing. My fast version, Tears for Fears, Sowing Seeds of Love, sounds more energetic and whacky than morosely dragging and sad. I thought my version is the real version but apparently not. After six of those I'm all, come on, Kids, snap it up, it's not that bad.

edutcher said...

I thought she was still at Fox.

Talk about coming down in the world.

rcommal said...

Chip:

Too many words, so less meaning.

regards,

lori

Chip Ahoy said...

I'll take some out. Who is lori?

rcommal said...

I get why people are awed by your posts. Your posts are, indeed, terrific! Hell, I was a fan of you and your posts starting from years ago, and don't I know it, and not only do I not regret that, I will never forget it. I even cooked some dishes that you recommended and demonstrated, via photographs.

That said, I am not intimidated by you.

Also, that said, I am amazed, at this point, that you, Chip, a true freethinker, can't find space for a fan of so very many years.
|
Eh, so, well. Never mind. : (

Chip Ahoy said...

Oh. I think I understand now.
lori is rcommal's wife?

That's something I noticed the kids do very well. I made the exact same decision they did, most of them, removing words to improve meaning. And that tells me they really did have to work that one out.

"I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad.
The dreams that I am dying are the best I ever had."

A lot of extra words there.

Me find so-so funny so-so sad
dreams me die best me have

And that lookspure and so perfect. When I seen them do it there is a perfect string, a chain of linked meanings that make sense and without any curlycues or serifs or extra letters or even any English.

Michael Haz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Haz said...

There are too many notes. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well, I'm confused by this whole thread. So...I'll focus on the hair.

As to the blond chic's hair style. I also hate that contrived long version of a heavily sprayed hair helmet that wouldn't move if she were in a hurricane force gale.

First of all as a blond she has thin hair. It would look thicker if cut shorter and not weighed down by the length. Shorter is also more attractive as we age, ladies. Remember when gravity is dragging your face and body parts down, at least you can minimize the drag by having nice shorter fluffy hair :-)

Then when these talking news heads torture their hair into this over the shoulder and framing the face style....just imagine what the back of their head looks like. The hair is parted in the back and forced to the front. Fortunately we only see them from the front, but think how really really stupid they look from the back.

That's my opinion. I'm not deciding for anyone.

Rabel said...

This thread is giving me a flashback to second semester calculus. I didn't know what the hell anybody was talking about then either.

Chip Ahoy said...

Michael Haz, I was thinking of Amadeus too.

I love that. A very pompous and proper and incredibly stupid king speaks down to an absurd ribald and sheer genius talent.

Trooper York said...

Lem and I would participate like it was a late night post back in the day but we don't drink anymore so it wouldn't be as much fun.

For anybody.

Trooper York said...

Oh and DBQ.....don't try to understand this...there ain't no way.

It's Chinatown.

Trooper York said...

And so it goes. If not now the as it was then.

rcommal said...

Recall that both of my parents were musicians (old-school definition).

Salieri was reduced to a literary device in that film about Mozart.

And while I might be just a literary device to you, Trooper, in fact my family is not such a thing. I don't consider yours to be such a thing, either.

---

All these years later, and you're still referring to Chinatown"?--as in, "'My sister! My daughter!' All those slaps!"

---

There ain't no way, indeed, I guess.



rcommal said...

You're stuck, too.

rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcommal said...

Haz, somewhere along the way I so offended you that there's no going back. This reality I do acknowledge.

Michael Haz said...

???????????