[Naren]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

That is very interesting! I read the first paragraph with zero difficulty, even though it was fubared to hell and back. I thought, "Egads! They are on to something."

Then I read further.

The next examples were much more difficult to decipher. Still, I find it sorta cool that it was so easy to read garbled words like that, even if the order of disorder was manipulated.

Yeah and he uses reasons why in the first examples it was easy to read (Simple short-words that are barely jumbled, they follow a predictable pattern, they are not jumbled into spellings of different words, etc. etc.). I liked this example:

Originally Posted by The web page

4) Clive Tooth has found what may be most ambiguous jumbled sentence (using words like "salt" which becomes "slat" when transposed)

"The sprehas had ponits and patles"

This might come out as...

The sherpas had pitons and plates.

The shapers had points and pleats.

The seraphs had pintos and petals.

The sphaers had pinots and palets.

The sphears had potins and peltas.

Clive lists some of the more obscure words in this set of possible readings:

palets: paleae (a part of a grass flower)

peltas: shields

pinots: grapes

potins: copper alloys

sphaers, sphears: both old form of 'spheres'

Also, the guy who made that page works at the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge University, UK, where they investigate how the brain processes language -- but the research cited in that "internet myth" never took place at Cambridge University. I thought that was interesting. There are so many lies on the internet. It's funny.

[The Dark Wolf]

Only on ss.org does a thread go from A. technical details about a specific guitar model, to B. a treatise on the morality of product logo use, to C. bashing of a left-handed Canadian, to finally D. an exposition of linguistic principles.

[Scott]

This is why I should sleep at night instead of posting on here.

[Naren]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

Only on ss.org does a thread go from A. technical details about a specific guitar model, to B. a treatise on the morality of product logo use, to C. bashing of a left-handed Canadian, to finally D. an exposition of linguistic principles.

I was thinking the same thing myself.

[metalfiend666]

Come on guys, go easy on Scott. He's only a paranoid depressed android after all

[JPMDan]

damn I missed all of this

Originally Posted by Scott

Thanks, I didn't know that.


Question: Did I use "know" properly, or should it be "no"?


Fuck, you'd think they'd teach that in school. That's something that should be taught in like, the fourth (Forth?) grade. Of course, I was taking french in the fourth(Is it fourth, or forth? This one will drive me bonkers ) grade, so that's probably where the system fucked up my grammar.

Thank god for you Americans. Since you didn't take french, or spanish, or common sense as a main course in school, you got to focus on your grammar! Because of this, you're (Please, correct me if that is wrong) there to help the rest of the world when we screw up.


Thanks Dan. For being one hell of a Model American


[/end sarcasm]

One huge error in this post, I took Spanish I and II in High School. I'm a cuban american my spanish and my english needs to be perfect. So what I get picky about grammar, you gave me shit for the logo and I gave you shit for spelling. It's like crying over spilled milk . I've gotten picky about grammar with other members of the forum and they didn't get bitchy. Relax and have a good day Scott.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

Only on ss.org does a thread go from A. technical details about a specific guitar model, to B. a treatise on the morality of product logo use, to C. bashing of a left-handed Canadian, to finally D. an exposition of linguistic principles.

I can see Scott's point though but also Dan's. Me, I love Ibanez so naturally, i'd want the logo but seeing how it's Chris Wood's product, it seems right to not put an Ibanez logo on there. It's like Andre's new 7 he got from Jeremy at LGM. He had pryamids on his neck but LGM on the headstock. I wouldv'e rather seen the Ibanez logo on it....to each his own.

[ChaNce]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I can see Scott's point though but also Dan's. Me, I love Ibanez so naturally, i'd want the logo but seeing how it's Chris Wood's product, it seems right to not put an Ibanez logo on there. It's like Andre's new 7 he got from Jeremy at LGM. He had pryamids on his neck but LGM on the headstock. I wouldv'e rather seen the Ibanez logo on it....to each his own.

That is the problem though: You are all forgetting that Ibanez is a BRAND. It means something. It has value. It doesn't mean "Christopher Woods". It doesn't mean "LGM".

Brand/brand meaning is my area of research (I'm a college professor). From Woods' standpoint, it is not just that he is worried about Ibanez suing. Let's say that you play one of his necks with an Ibanez sticker on it (and you don't know that it is his neck): all that goodwill and positive feeling that you have about that neck is attached to Ibanez, not Christopher Woods.

On the other hand, what if you play that guitar and hate that neck? Ibanez doesn't want your shitty attitude to be linked to them, they would much rather have you dislike Christopher Woods.

(BTW, this is an example. I'm using Woods and Ibanez for illustrative purposes only, not because they are special cases. The issue is the same with any copied/dishonest brand.)

This is what a brand is: it is a "home base" for all of your feelings, thoughts, emotions, and judgments to attach to.

When you put an Ibanez sticker on a Christopher Woods neck, you potentially but BOTH brands at risk. You may not care, but they do.

Frankly, I'm impressed with Ibanez's flexibility on other builders using their shapes. But my guess is that they know that their brand is strong enough to protect them from crappy knock-offs. Or they can't be bothered to go around suing people.

[zimbloth]

I do agree with Scott that putting an Ibanez logo on it is kind of cheesy, but I also agree with Dan that if you could save $50 by not putting his logo on it, why not? If I could have knocked $50 off my Rico Jr 7-string to do that, I would have. I love Bernie and his work but I don't care THAT much. I can give plenty of word of mouth advertising to make up for the fact if people see it on stage they might not know who made it.

[D-EJ915]

Originally Posted by Naren

Yeah and he uses reasons why in the first examples it was easy to read (Simple short-words that are barely jumbled, they follow a predictable pattern, they are not jumbled into spellings of different words, etc. etc.). I liked this example:



Also, the guy who made that page works at the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge University, UK, where they investigate how the brain processes language -- but the research cited in that "internet myth" never took place at Cambridge University. I thought that was interesting. There are so many lies on the internet. It's funny.

You have to remember that 79% of statistics are made up on the spot and that I typed this with my right hand while eating a nutty bar which was pretty awesome.