Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to grammartalk.
Gizmo wrote: ↑
February 10th, 2020, 11:59 pm
Not many people will spend significant time editing a response post if it's utter nonsense even to them. But you will read into my posts (in almost —but not quite— every thread) ludicrous stuff that I'd never consider suggesting... and then accuse me of it. Go read back your posts for an eleventh time to check this out.
I have a fair amount of free time when I check this forum, and I'm willing to spend it bashing my head against a wall. I also have a proclivity for arguing, which probably factors in heavily. But, let's use this thread as a test case.
The thread title uses a specific, charged, word in "expurgated". This word has pretty strong connotations of purification
. While the dictionary doesn't mention it, it has almost religious or puritanical implications. So we're starting with very strong wording, stronger than even a charged word like "censored" would have.
You then went into your primary thesis and, at the end, two(!) footnotes; one on Jennell and one about bracelets and "[garish] makeup". While the Jennell footnote is indeed in past tense, you add in a present tense question, making it look like you're implying that Jennell was possible responsible for the art. But my primary point here is on your second footnote.
Footnotes are usually used for random inconsequential asides or to further expand on an earlier point. Since this footnote started with "Also" and because it was about something (the Prostitute's art) you mentioned in the main body, it read as an expansion, not an aside. Read in this manner, it looks like you're claiming that the removal of bracelets and makeup were part of the expurgation. Which, as explained above, is a rather charged word.
Now, this entire thought process isn't necessarily conscious, but that's what's going on in the background. Quite a bit wordier than the actual process, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. It's not a matter of "Gizmo wrote something so let me read it in the worst way possible".
But I don't see that it affects readability, or makes it difficult to understand.
All that superfluous stuff makes comprehension difficult by the very nature of it existing. Instead of just reading, you have to break everything down and re-read to figure out what's trying to be said. All of it obfuscates your meaning in a flood of excessive grammatical detritus. For instance: "For all we —can speculate, they might have a limit to the number of colors per image, or the (data) size of the animated picture." What on Earth is that em-dash doing in there? Em-dashes are used to set aside subordinate clauses, and since there's no closure, that means the primary clause is "For all we," which is very clearly not
a primary clause. And, just to be extra pedantic, there's no reason to make "data" a parenthetical.
As for footnotes, one would expect them to be excessive rare in forum posts, or for random unimportant asides. And not in nearly every post...
*Technically I use ellipsis for omissions and to indicate a stronger pause than a comma.
...and certainly not to contain actual explanations that should be in the main body.
In this case it posits that you seem to associate the author with the meaning; the exact wording could be identical from each, but the interpretation of meaning changes when you think the author is a dumb-ass.
Considering I subscribe to The Author is Dead, I disagree with this point. I never hesitate to point out where I agree with someone, even someone I vociferously disagree with. My interpretation isn't entirely dependent on the author. At most, it leads to a less charitable interpretation. Which, of course, would cease to be an issue if the writing was clear; then there would be minimal room for interpretation.
* * *
So it's animated too?
Every cameo was animated, much like my avatar (which is from the DOS version). For most cameos, the C64 looks like a more primitive version of the DOS version.
When you say, "greens and yellows and reds in the game", were they onscreen elsewhere at the same time?
Well, there's this
. We have red and gray for the brick; red and brown for the floor; purple and gray for the bed; orangish for the table; blue, cyan, black, and white for the door; green, brown, and white for the Ranger; purple, yellow, and white for the clerk. So, red, gray, brown, purple, orangish, blue, cyan, white, yellow, green simultaneously. While I'm certainly not a master of Commodore Assembly, I've watched numerous videos by the 8-Bit Guy, and there were a lot of tricks to get around hardware limitations. And considering some of the bonkers stuff Interplay did to make Wasteland work, I wouldn't be surprised at them doing some chicanery for the graphics.