My previous statement, "Apparently the French aren't smart enough to use common sense," was sarcasm. If you read the post I replied to you would have known this, but you are ignorant and all is forgiven.
1) "all is forgiven"
There is nothing to be forgiven here, besides perhaps your incessant insults like
"you are ignorant," "your answers suck," "you're just a moron with an inflated ego." But the intentional nature of these insults makes them unforgivable.
Conclusion:
You, as an offender, as an intentional transgressor of civil discussion rules, are far from the position to offer forgiveness.
2) "you are ignorant"
Let's analyze who is ignoring what here.
Here is your claim:
This statement
< Apparently the French aren't smart enough to use common sense. > is sarcastic.
And here is what precludes its alleged sarcasm:
Sarcasm necessarily requires irony, and there is no trace of irony in your statement. If your position was on those French people's side, then yes -- you could have passed your statement as ironical, even sarcastic. But you never said anything that would show personal favorable attitude towards them. On the contrary, your position was consistently on the opposite side, against them -- which rules out any ironic intention from your part in that statement. In the absence of irony, a statement can't be sarcastic. And since it can't be sarcastic, your statement indicates that you truly believe that French people are not very smart. Now, given how carelessly you label strangers as "ignorant," that makes your type of thinking rather consistent. Further, given how carelessly you dismiss well-documented and carefully backed-up points, as those posted by mikedale78, that puts everything in an even clearer picture that you are painting here. And you are here painting your own picture, make no mistake about it. You can't harm anyone but yourself: not the French people, not mikedale78, not me, not anyone but your-own-petty-self. The insults you spout is just pissing against the wind. Which, I'm sorry to observe, makes you stink.
Conclusions:
a. Since it is you and not me who ignores what sarcasm is, that makes you also ignore who the real ignorant is on sarcasm matters -- which is, again, yourself.
b. Since that careless statement of yours can't be sarcasm, that makes it what it really is: a shameless and obtuse insult toward French people.
Yes, I don't know why or if he was offered another means of communication, but what your ignorance neglects to realize is that YOU DON'T EITHER.
My ignorance about what? What's the thing that I was neglecting? There was nothing there to neglect. What you are ignoring here is that I have never made any claim of
knowing why or whatnot. I have only observed that those people were using a working system, which made me assume that this must have been enough reason for them not to drop it. No pretense from my part of
knowing anything about the subject, just an opinion intended to answer OP's "why" question.
And to mikedale, where's the link that eyetracking wasn't available? Also link a reference that states Bauby was offered more efficient or alternative means of communication. Thanks.
It was YOU, and not mikedale78, who was suggesting that eyetracking technology was available and efficiently working on LIS patients in 1995. And since it was you who was implying the existence of that technology at that time, therefore it is upon YOU to prove its existence, and not upon mikedale78 to prove its nonexistence. What you ask is absurd, or at least immature, like "prove to me that God doesn't exist. Since you can't prove its nonexistence, therefore God exists. I win." That's childish thinking. Asking for internet links that would prove
the nonexistence of something? Ludicrous.
In other words: without any proof, you were assuming that in 1995 there was available some eyetracking technology that was efficiently working on LIS patients. Since you were assuming that, therefore it is on YOU to post links that would prove your claim. After (and if) you will prove what you claim as true, then and only then you can ask whether or not Bauby was offered alternative eyetracking technology. What you ignore here is this part of mikedale78's post:
The link below is the closest we're likely to get to the original source of this whole dispute. It's the official site for the Association of Locked-In Syndrome, set up by... Jean-Dominique Bauby.
http://alis-asso.fr/ewb_pages/e/eng_alis.php
The next link (found via the first link) is where I found more evidence that the methods used in the film are pretty much standard for LIS sufferers across the world.
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/57336?pageNumber=2
Take the time to actually read those articles. There are still chances that you will finally understand. Then, maybe you will have the civility to apologize for your insults, also the decency to take off your hat in front of mikedale78. That's what gentlemen do: acknowledge evident superiority and give due praise to someone who's been truly helpful.
reply
share