From the Wikipedia entry on Malinche Entertainment:

"Malinche Entertainment claims to be working in the tradition of early interactive fiction developer Infocom. Sherman claims to have sold 150,000 copies of his games as of May 2006.[2] He claims the business is profitable.[2]"

Now, I have no particular love for Malinche Entertainment; frankly, Howard Sherman is annoying, and there's not a lot of respect lost between him and the greater IF community.

With that said... sentence #2 is a claim. Sentence #3 is a claim. After all, we can't check those things (unless Sherman opens up his complete financial records for viewing, which seems Highly Unlikely.) But what about sentence #1? Malinche is an interactive fiction company; Infocom was an interactive fiction company. Malinche celebrates Infocom's legacy visibly (they ran a piece on the 30th anniversary). Malinche demonstrates the same weird errors that some Infocom games demonstrated. Isn't this close enough?

Then again, I suppose you have to define "the tradition of early interactive fiction developer Infocom" in order to argue that statement. Still, I wouldn't bicker.

Not that I'm going to change the article, mind you. This is a bigger can of worms than I want to play with (and also, my ability to break Wikipedia should not be underestimated. I fear wikis, just like I fear computer guts.) I just saw the "claims" "claims" "claims" continuing for three sentences and thought it was silly.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS )

1. Lesson 101 for the Deaf Interpreter: Break yourself of the habit of mouthing swear words when frustrated. No one can HEAR you, but these people read lips, and they do not know you are not speaking! (No, I don't think anyone saw me... but I realized exactly as I was doing it that it was a bad idea.)

2. It is inherently wrong to have a deaf child and not learn sign language. Writing is not enough -- that will leave you totally without lines of communication to your child for at least two years (if not six or eight.)
At the request of my supervisor, I sent out an email today to my coworkers explaining a peculiar situation that had come up and how it was to be handled. I had denied a parking permit to a person who had what was (apparently, but not actually) all the appropriate paperwork for the permit. Because his paperwork looked correct, I had to notify my coworkers so that he couldn't just "shop around" for someone who didn't know any better. Thus, the email.

I asked one of my coworkers later in the day whether she had any questions about the email. "Oh, that?" she said. "I didn't understand it, so I deleted it."

Obviously, there is a lack of respect issue at hand, but what really astonished me was her attitude. I've heard her make the same comment before, but never quite in those words. (And never before about something I sent... but I'm not in the habit of sending division-wide email unless specifically instructed to do so.)

When I don't understand something related to my job, I go back to the party sending the email (or the "with questions, ask..." person) and ask what was meant by the initial email. I'm not shy; if someone cared enough to send the email in the first place, then that person obviously wants to be understood. Why wouldn't you? If you give even half a damn about it, shouldn't you want to know as much as you can about your job, so that you can do it as well as possible? (My coworker's answer is apparently "no"... but, then, I wonder whether she gives half a damn.)

I'm amazed. Just amazed.

How do people get through life that way?

Profile

hermitgeecko

September 2014

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
1415161718 1920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 2nd, 2025 08:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios