Master of Observational Science [1]
This is a very annoying video. Watch it yourself, and see!
That's right! He doesn't tell you how many passes were made! I had to go back and watch it three times to check my count4,
Oh?
What?
You meant the not seeing the ape-suited actor? Pshaw! I already knew that about myself in spades.
Hattip to amy34
[1] This phrase courtesy, Mr. Wright2
[2] As it happens, the good man has always insisted that this should be "Mistress." I I would argue, however, that that, given the flexibility that English allows masculine-gendered words (e.g. "he" can include both male and female examples, betimes) and the strongly different connotations of "Mistress" and "Master," that in this instance, "Master" is to be preferred. Mr. Wright is, of course, a much better writer and philosopher than I am, but I may well be the better language pedant!3
[3] Possibly a thing whot of I ought not be too proud...
[4] 17.5. I originally counted 16 because I discounted one of the first passes (a mistake), and decided on the third go-round that the final pass may not have been completed before the cut-up, but it was begun. So: 17.5
[5] An LJ first--?
That's right! He doesn't tell you how many passes were made! I had to go back and watch it three times to check my count4,
Oh?
What?
You meant the not seeing the ape-suited actor? Pshaw! I already knew that about myself in spades.
Hattip to amy34
[1] This phrase courtesy, Mr. Wright2
[2] As it happens, the good man has always insisted that this should be "Mistress." I I would argue, however, that that, given the flexibility that English allows masculine-gendered words (e.g. "he" can include both male and female examples, betimes) and the strongly different connotations of "Mistress" and "Master," that in this instance, "Master" is to be preferred. Mr. Wright is, of course, a much better writer and philosopher than I am, but I may well be the better language pedant!3
[3] Possibly a thing whot of I ought not be too proud...
[4] 17.5. I originally counted 16 because I discounted one of the first passes (a mistake), and decided on the third go-round that the final pass may not have been completed before the cut-up, but it was begun. So: 17.5
[5] An LJ first--?