Radix

As an aside, why do or did people claim there is visual learning aside from spatial learning? I don't experience visual and spatial imagination as different things. (With reasoning about time always assumed.)

Here I think you meant your comment as a final unavoidable contradiction to the GPs post, but I recall reading some lore on a father of the internet steering the RFC process while a government branch was working on another standard meant to be primary. (I'd look it up but I'm on my mobile.) So I doubt we can say it was more the government institution rather than the will of the builders which led to the internet which is more in line with the GP and doesn't take away from the idea that their positions made their work possible.

(Not that I'd give this an up-vote.)

I don't believe the two approaches can be meaningfully separated, but some people try to do so. Which can only cause problems as each belongs to a different type of problem. One doesn't rationalized where a lobbed ball will land when going to catch it, but a non-expert doesn't intuit where a mortar will land upon firing it.

When was this last true? Where is this true? I've been to a half dozen Walmarts in North Texas which, I believe, all have security patrol in golf carts or old sub-compacts. At least the three I frequent do.

Not that the book is worth derision, just as a tactic for those who take themselves too seriously.

Let's consider person A and person B. Both A and B see and consider derivative art X' separately. A thinks: there's nothing original here. She's already seen art X. B thinks: wow, how interesting. B has not seen art X and so the uninspired derivation is still interesting.

Similarly, I think the Mona Lisa is a reasonably accurate painting of an unattractive woman. There is nothing beautiful or intrinsically interesting about it. It's due to POV. In fact, each of your examples in the OP is a different perspective. A different reason to consider something art. If you had a stricter definition I don't see how you could change perspective so easily.

I actually reduced all words defined on emotions to being subjective. I don't think this causes a problem. I don't see this as doing art injustice. Saying it is just subjective just gives us a spot to start from.

(Oi, now I don't know if I made sense.) [1] There was a PBS like program on the BBC one night that discussed some research about this.

The trouble with this discussion is people keep attempting to define objective attributes of art. But art doesn't have objective attributes; they are all subjective. Art is a feeling we get when we look at something others call art. We see three paintings, all "art", and two of them give you a certain feeling, so you call it "art" and suppose they feel the same about the third painting. And there it is. You now have an idea called "art" to develop.

It is in this way that our idea of art overlaps with each others, appearing to be the same from a distance, but irreconcilable at proximity. This is why this concept is so fuzzy and difficult to sketch out. We really do need to experience art before we can believe it as art. So, Mr. Ebert's right. Video games aren't art - to him.

Consider a person who both wants to be a doctor, because they admire the direct nature of a doctors work, but they don't enjoy people themselves. And, also wants to be an engineer because they find it all more interesting and valuable, but they never particularly liked math. Depending on the person one choice will be more desirable and will be easier to learn motivation for.

I believe it isn't. I appreciate Michael's summary because it shows where Ebert's blind spot is. (I think you get it though.) Games allow you to be pulled into stories better, or at least differently, than movies. More like novels than movies as you find yourself putting more into the story than you're given, or as in Bioshock you adopt the character as yourself and wonder what do I really think about Ryan? He seems okay to me, but I'm not sure about Atlas. The story is about as artistic as a sequel to Atlas Shrugged could be.

Then there is the idea some games contain art. Donkey Kong 2 isn't a game I would claim to be art, but Stickerbrush Symphony is one of the finest levels in any game I've played. The experience of bouncing from barrel to barrel with this beautiful music and environment... I'm not talented enough a writer to explain. The music and scene are the lines in those cave paintings.

Ebert's hung up on the word game and can't see those moments frozen in time. And without playing the games and giving himself over to them he won't be able to. The over riding purpose isn't the game play, it's those moments in time where you don't just understand the story, but you believe it.

I'd rather the color of the friends names be the same orange as around the Y in the logo; it looks brighter on my monitor. And, I wish friends posts on the main page weren't quite as dark, and possibly not bolded. There, but more subtle.

Thanks again.

Specifically, I disagree with their interpretation of the passage about the man spilling his seed. It wasn't worth death because he spilled his seed, but because he deliberately deprived his brother of a child, rather than simply being infertile as other men who failed to father children were.

[edited]

Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?