Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

GUILTY ,GUILTY on all counts --- M'Lud

I wasn't looking at the first bit !!!

I fear it is Sackcloth and Ashes !

NEILL THE NOTORIOUS wrote:GUILTY ,GUILTY on all counts --- M'Lud

I wasn't looking at the first bit !!!

I fear it is Sackcloth and Ashes !

or new spectacles.

englishangel wrote:

NEILL THE NOTORIOUS wrote:GUILTY ,GUILTY on all counts --- M'Lud

I wasn't looking at the first bit !!!

I fear it is Sackcloth and Ashes !

or new spectacles.

Arr !

Now we're getting near to the Christian 'Sign Of The Cross' !

I won't enlarge as I don't want to offend people of the strict faith !

Think, Dave Allen.

How many pedants are revolting?

If more than one then pedants' revolt I would have thought!

I assume that the" Pedants Revolt" has the word "Revolt" as a verb -- rather than a noun.

It puts me in mind of the old Army joke --- "Sir, Sir -- the Natives are lookung Ugly ! "
"You've been here two Months -- and you've onl just discovered that ? !

Also "The Students are Revolting " and other prmutations !

All revolting Pedants ----- read JR's latest in "Jokes" --- priceless !

Just tell me it was an auditory illusion.

I was listening to last night's Moral Maze on R4. An earnest panel + expert guests debated the benefits of "tough love" and State intervention for parenting skills that would result in "positive outcomes".

I am almost sure that an expert used a strange new word

problemacization

Did I really hear correctly?

Correct-- or not --- I love the word !



---- and may well use it, to see the expression, on the faces of other listeners---

Even I am flummoxed by that one Munch.

Bit deep for me, but I suspect Munch may have had a spelling mistake?

http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/ ... atization/

Thank you Kerren.

Problematization. With a t. Well, I was dozing off a little bit before the word startled me awake!

"Problematization doesn’t mean the representation of a pre-existent object, nor the creation through discourse of an object that doesn’t exist. It’s the set of discursive or nondiscursive practices that makes something enter into the play of the true and false, and constitutes it as an object for thought (whether under the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis, etc.)"

Er, now I know! Of course!

As I said, a bit deep for me.(!!)
zzzzzzzzzzzzz

kerrensimmonds wrote:As I said, a bit deep for me.(!!)
zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Can something be "a bit deep?" Either it is deep or it is not surely!

That reminds me of another of my pet hates - 'slightly unique'! - either something is unique or not!

Mid A 15 wrote:

kerrensimmonds wrote:As I said, a bit deep for me.(!!)
zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Can something be "a bit deep?" Either it is deep or it is not surely!

I took Kerren's comment as meaning "a bit (too) deep" - the "too" being implied, ie a kind of shorthand; therefore quite acceptable?

Fjgrogan wrote:That reminds me of another of my pet hates - 'slightly unique'! - either something is unique or not!

I quite agree, Frances - and the number of times people in the media say "totally" or "absolutely" unique is infuriating!