Nothing much to add to the warnings thing everyone's been posting about

[bladderwrack]

However, I do feel like complaining about the fashion for framing debate and edification in terms of contrived analogies that are more confusing and difficult to follow than the actual subject beiing discussed!

Cropped Scan Theatre says it: "Tsuzuki: Well, you see, this candle represents your life. And, this shoe... represents Maria. And, uh, this pitcher of water represents the guy who's been controlling Maria! So, if you don't want your shoes to be on fire, metaphorically speaking... wait, no, your shoes are on fire. So the only way to put them out is... uh... ... wait, no, I've got it. This chair represents bringing Maria back to life, and the shoe--"

You're making my head hurt here, gaiz*.



*The actual reason I have a problem with this technique is because it smacks of being talked down to, and that is a thing that bothers me considerably more than is rational.


Have gone through the knees of my one passably smart pair of jeans again. I don't know how this happens, it is always the knees. =_=

Comments

[bladderwrack]

I didn't say the other process is without value (although I suppose I /did/ not say it, sins of omission etc). If nothing else, the emotional charge of coming across something unknown and strange and resonant is considerable. But I mean, if you(general)'re that impressed, you want to progress to a deeper engagement with the text, right?

... and here was me trying to derail the conversation with recs. I'm sorry, I don't know what you think, or more precisely what you cut in order to make a clear line of argument. I may in fact take advantage of the invitation to bow out of this for a while; all this moving-targets stuff is making me seasick. mixed metaphors ftw

Those footnotes are neat, what's the code for the superscript numbers?

But at least you get superscript code out of it!

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

I used a cool feature in the Apple system to bypass the need for the actual code, but I bet I can find it.

-- aaand this is me, hedging those bets. I can find something. For the superscript 1, I see Unicode 00B9. But for the superscript 2, I see Unicode 00B2, which makes that Unicode 00B9 seem suspicious to me. Even though it shows up in a neat table that also gives me a superscript 3 as Unicode 00B3, and no higher numbers as superscripts in the 00B range at all.

Perhaps this Unicode thing is entirely irrelevant? If so, I wonder what the devil it actually is.

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

And here's something better. Forget trying to code the individual characters; just use this handy html tag: [SUP] [/SUP].

Or so the Google tells me. Let me try it here, with the classic example: E=mc².

[bladderwrack]

Yeah, I was expecting a HTML tag, they're easier to remember. ^Neato.