The Death Of Cursive

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

modernism is not just an architectural movement, but also one in painting for example

---

Do you mean house painting? Like the other Adolf did?

 

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

architects are at the very least partially artists.

Ever cared to look at some of Loos' interiors btw? Even Adolf (not Wolfgang) himself knew very well that people can't live in a purely functional factorylike building. A beautiful example

on this page

.

---

---

As I pointed out earlier,  according to your argument everybody is an artist. Are you suggesting that architects are not very good ones? Or perhaps half-hearted ones, that want to be seen to be functional on the outside but have rugs on the floor inside that look nice, but that you can trip over and break your neck - as per the Living Room in the example you offer.

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page.

---

It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history.

ETA: Even Microsoft has eventually realised the need for simplicity, not a multi-purpose portal, but Bing is too little, too late.

ETAF: Google Doodles are the art world's equivalent of kids' toys; I don't see them, because on my desktop I have the single essential element of the Google home page - a box to type my search terms in.

---

Google became a successful search engine because of two things:- (1) It returned much better results than any of the other major engines and (2) because it wasn't cluttered with ads and such. #1 was THE main reason. Because of its superior results Google became a major engine through word of mouth, especially from those who were in the search engine business at the time.

So contrary to what you wrote, Google WAS a great search engine to begin with. Its results were so superior that other major engines copied it, specifically its majoring on links. They didn't copy it immediately, of course, because there was no money in search engines back then. When Google later started to make huge amounts of money by becoming an advertising agency with an excellent engine, the other copied. And if you are interested in how they knew what to copy, when they were developing Google (called 'Backrub' at the time) at Stanford University, Google's creators published how the engine worked, and it's still online for all to see.

Incidentally, the portals you mentioned - the major engines at the time - failed because they never found a way to make money. By the time that Google showed the way, it was too late. Some of them had already gone to the wall by then.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

I was under the impression that Google became so large because it returned the most relevant results. Good to know it was because they have an empty page.

---

It wasn't a great search engine to begin with - there were lots of better portals which had a massive head start and failed because they confused the user, and are actually still doing so - but people used it because it was simple. The rest is history.

ETA: Even Microsoft has eventually realised the need for simplicity, not a multi-purpose portal, but Bing is too little, too late.

ETAF: Google Doodles are the art world's equivalent of kids' toys; I don't see them, because on my desktop I have the single essential element of the Google home page - a box to type my search terms in.

---

Google became a successful search engine because of two things:- (1) It returned much better results than any of the other major engines and (2) because it wasn't cluttered with ads and such. #1 was THE main reason. Because of its superior results Google became a major engine through word of mouth, especially from those who were in the search engine business at the time.

So contrary to what you wrote, Google WAS a great search engine to begin with. Its results were so superior that other major engines copied it, specifically its majoring on links. They didn't copy it immediately, of course, because there was no money in search engines back then. When Google later started to make huge amounts of money by becoming an advertising agency with an excellent engine, the other copied. And if you are interested in how they knew what to copy, when they were developing Google (called 'Backrub' at the time) at Stanford University, Google's creators published how the engine worked, and it's still online for all to see.

Incidentally, the portals you mentioned - the major engines at the time - failed because they never found a way to make money. By the time that Google showed the way, it was too late. Some of them had already gone to the wall by then.

---

Yeah, I just said that. In a less prolix manner.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

Remember, Google's business success has little to do with the efficacy of its search algorithm (note the correct spelling to improve the credibility of your arguments in future) and everything to do with its innovative and effective advertising sales model.

---

Actually, I don't "remember" that. Might be because it's something you made up.

Credibility? Over one letter? Coming from the person who got an entire NAME wrong? Excuse me for having another language than English as my native one. At least I don't confuse one of best known architects of the 20th century with a football player or musician.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

Do you mean house painting? Like the other Adolf did?

---

Please open a history book or two, one about "the other" Adolf, one about modern art.

 

---

As I pointed out earlier,  according to your argument everybody is an artist. Are you suggesting that architects are not very good ones? Or perhaps half-hearted ones, that want to be seen to be functional on the outside but have rugs on the floor inside that look nice, but that you can trip over and break your neck - as per the Living Room in the example you offer.

---

Huh? According to which argument by me is everyone an artist? My point is that architects are part artist, part engineer. There are great ones and rubbish ones, like in any profession. The carpets in the pictures are functional btw, unlike the cornices for example, or at least the shape of them. Even Mister Functionality realised you can't build a house purely functional. You completely missed the point there. Functionality doesn't build a house.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Huh? According to which argument by me is everyone an artist? My point is that architects are part artist, part engineer. There are great ones and rubbish ones, like in any profession. The carpets in the pictures are functional btw, unlike the cornices for example, or at least the shape of them. Even Mister Functionality realised you can't build a house purely functional. You completely missed the point there. Functionality doesn't build a house.

---

Ah, my mistake, initially I didn't realise that your arguments were a load of rubbish because you aren't an EFLer. I just thought they were a load of rubbish.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

one of best known architects of the 20th century

---

That's a little like being one of the world's tallest dwarves, isn't it?

ETA: I deliberately changed Adolf's first name because I didn't want to be accused of Godwinning the thread.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

one of best known architects of the 20th century

---

That's a little like being one of the world's tallest dwarves, isn't it?

ETA: I deliberately changed Adolf's first name because I didn't want to be accused of Godwinning the thread.

---

I've never understood why people like you, upon finding they've dug themselves into a hole, grab a bigger shovel.

ETA: Bringing Loos, a modernist,  to your defense in criticising art (ornamentation), then denigrating the modernist century is  the kind of self contradiction you are not learning not to do better than almost anyone I've seen.

Bravo!

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

So at least you can admit I have any arguments, I can't say the same about a single one of your whatdoyouwannacallem.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

I've never understood why people like you, upon finding they've dug themselves into a hole, grab a bigger shovel.

---

Still haven't recovered your sense of humour, I see. Still, I can understand how my sarcasm might be difficult for the homeschooled product of apparently semi-literate teachers to comprehend.

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 

Bringing Loos, a modernist,  to your defense in criticising art (ornamentation), then denigrating the modernist century is  the kind of self contradiction you are not learning not to do better than almost anyone I've seen.

---

Once again, it must be difficult for someone brought up without the normal social intercourse to comprehend the joy I find in self-referentially ambiguous paradoxes; that Loos was a self-serving hypocritical attention whore whose commercial work contradicted his avowed principles is obvious and delightful to me, but seemingly of concern to you.

Try harder.

 

 

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

So at least you can admit I have any arguments, I can't say the same about a single one of your whatdoyouwannacallem.

---

If you were more than semi-competent in English you might approach understanding. You're not, and you don't. Stick to scripting.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

So at least you can admit I have any arguments, I can't say the same about a single one of your whatdoyouwannacallem.

---

If you were more than semi-competent in English you might approach understanding. You're not, and you don't. Stick to scripting.

---

And, like in pretty much all your posts before this one, you are making things up. I'm not a scripter, no idea where you got that idea.

My English might be limited, it's not half as limited as your ability to make a point. Since you joined, this entire thread feels like a driveby shooting, except it's more of a miss and run than hit and run. Plus by now you keep driving up and down the street without any ammo, leaving your car with more holes every single time.

btw.. Make up your mind, am I or am I not "an EFLer"?

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

btw.. Make up your mind, am I or am I not "an EFLer"?

---

It's difficult to tell, in these forums, whether someone is an ESLer, simply semi-literate, incredibly arrogant and lazy, brain damaged, or has been encouraged by incompetent home-schooler parents to express themselves freely and not to worry unduly whether your errors prevent others from accurately understanding you. You may fall into any or all of those categories, and your admission elsewhere to being an ESLer may even be a mendacious attempt at a smokescreen to hide your true failings.

You may even be faking your lack of comprehension and inability to express yourself, for some reason; I do that myself occasionally, because I can, but the difference is that it is impossible for the stupid to pretend to be smart, and I have established my true status here over half a decade.

Keep reading. As with others who have humiliated themselves by demonstrating publicly their lack of comprehension, by persisting you may learn enough to achieve a degree of realisation of your own inadequacies.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

it is impossible for the stupid to pretend to be smart,

---

It shows. Posts and posts without any spelling errors and still nothing fruitful.

Your true status is also very clear, not a single person seems to take you seriously, for obvious reasons.

You're the troll that chokes on everything it's fed.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

one of best known architects of the 20th century

---

That's a little like being one of the world's tallest dwarves, isn't it?

ETA: I deliberately changed Adolf's first name because I didn't want to be accused of Godwinning the thread.

---

I've never understood why people like you, upon finding they've dug themselves into a hole, grab a bigger shovel.

ETA: Bringing Loos, a modernist,  to your defense in criticising art (ornamentation), then denigrating the modernist century is  the kind of self contradiction you are not learning not to do better than almost anyone I've seen.

Bravo!

---

Maddy - and everyone else - there are people, very few people, who it is simply not worthwhile engaging in any sort of reasoned discussion because their objective is not to have a reasoned discussion. Their objective is only to put people down, and engaging with them only feeds their enjoyment. They can be shown to be wrong all day long but they love it because it gives them more opportunities to put people down. One such person is participating in this thread and it is best to ignore that person.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Up to now I had the feeling the only person being put down is the person trying to put others down, doing it to himself. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rather pointless exercise to keep posting, I do agree:)

It's crystal clear there is no reasonable discussion possible. That doesn't change the fact that someone unwilling to see the difference between being a smart-ass and being smart (or just an ass maybe?) can at times be amusing. Note that "laughing with" and "laughing at" are two very different things.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Pie Serendipity wrote:

it is impossible for the stupid to pretend to be smart,

---

It shows. Posts and posts without any spelling errors and still nothing fruitful.

Your true status is also very clear, not a single person seems to take you seriously, for obvious reasons.

You're the troll that chokes on everything it's fed.

---

Continued repetition of inaccuracy does not make it correct; it merely expands the scope of your humiliation.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Maddy - and everyone else - there are people, very few people, who it is simply not worthwhile engaging in any sort of reasoned discussion because their objective is not to have a reasoned discussion. Their objective is only to put people down, and engaging with them only feeds their enjoyment. They can be shown to be wrong all day long but they love it because it gives them more opportunities to put people down. One such person is participating in this thread and it is best to ignore that person.

---

You are so right, Phil. Those unable to hold a reasoned discussion would do well to heed your words and desist in their participation, instanter.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

Up to now I had the feeling the only person being put down is the person trying to put others down, doing it to himself. That doesn't change the fact that it's a rather pointless exercise to keep posting, I do agree:)

It's crystal clear there is no reasonable discussion possible. That doesn't change the fact that someone unwilling to see the difference between being a smart-ass and being smart (or just an ass maybe?) can at times be amusing. Note that "laughing with" and "laughing at" are two very different things.

---

Keep up the English lessons; you may achieve a degree of understanding eventually.

You see, your problem is the same as Suspiria's used to be, and countless ESLers suffer from as well; you don't understand what you don't understand. See Abba's song lyrics for a prime example of the problem.

[Madeline Blackbart]

I love how pies arguements lend nothing to the actual conversation at hand. Insulting people's intelligence doesn't actually prove your point. It only proves that you have no real defience of your ideas so you switched to name calling like a child. Troll harder pie.

[Pie Serendipity]

---

Madeline Blackbart wrote:

I love how pies arguements lend nothing to the actual conversation at hand. Insulting people's intelligence doesn't actually prove your point. It only proves that you have no real defience of your ideas so you switched to name calling like a child. Troll harder pie.

---

If you inspect the thread carefully I think you will find the reality of the situation is that my normal approach, as recommended by my father of "Don't start anything, but make sure you finish it" applies. I find retaliation an appropriate defence against your accusations.

Unless of course the posts by hyperemotional over-reacting participants initiating the offensive dialogue have been removed, either to prevent self-humiliation, or by moderators acting in accordance with the ToS, which I applaud.

[Maryanne Solo]

We seem to have heard all this before..... *yawn

Nevertheless...

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

[Kenbro Utu]

Here is a much newer version, though aesthetically less pleasing.  Maybe a home version is just around the bend...

[HexiDecimal1]

As the saying goes "Earth without art is just eh!"

[HexiDecimal1]

LOVE your reply! Well done!!!!