Most people see exercise as healthy, and see walking as a reasonably comfortable form of exercise. Some think that they should spend precious exercise time doing something more athletic, and others just can’t find the time to walk. But most seem to enjoy walking and see it as healthy, if only they could find the time.
Sure it's awkward and could have been better written, but that's not the claim I responded to.
P.S. It's interesting to compare "walking sticks" to "walking talks". No one ever interprets the former as sticks that walk. OTOH, it seems that no one interpreted the latter as talks about walking, although they certainly could have -- so it is ambiguous, after all. But nonetheless, I immediately discerned the correct meaning when I saw the title.
Devilish it's not, but awkward it is. The problem is, as you note, the miscue by "talks," which (rather than "walking") is what wants replacement: "Why not walking lectures?"
Rounthwaite said it was "devilishly difficult ... to parse". It's not ... "walking" is either a verb or an adjective, and it's clearly the latter here. And once parsed, it is easily understood, no less so than "Why not ambulatory talks?"
It can be hard to understand without being ambiguous, can't it? (I'd call the title disfluent, which isn't always bad - http://disputedissues.blogs... )
Sophistic bullshit. This is nothing like the blue dress.
"I didn't understand what it was going to be about because I didn't think of "walking" as modifying "talks""
In other words, it was simply your own failing, nothing else. You claimed that you saw "many parses", but you didn't see the obvious and correct one. Your claim was complete dishonest bullshit.
This is often the case when people see things differently -- "the dress is obviously blue", etc. I assumed the article might have been something along these lines, but mainly knew that I didn't understand what it was going to be about because I didn't think of "walking" as modifying "talks" -- I've been in your shoes plenty of times. http://business.time.com/20...
'the provision of visual cues ... increased the accuracy of speech stimuli identification in both silence and noise'-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Its difficult looking at a speakers face while walking in groups larger than 3-5. We can assume that, like everything, different people have differing skill at audiovisual processing. The traditional speaker-at-front-facing-attendees setup allows people with differing skills to self segregate as needed (the front row is rarely the first to fill up). Most walking tours I've taken include stops where most of the talking is done, I don't believe that's what you're referring to here.
Some friends and I are doing something similar: at ten minutes notice, everyone joins a conference call in their respective countries and walks for two miles while they discuss three questions together. The organizers of the call prepare the questions, and invite the participants (who often don’t know each other).
It’s been a really great experience, and I think it parallels walking lectures in several ways.
By the way, thanks for your great presentation in Berlin this month!
Everyone would need to move in the same direction, which means they would need to face the same direction, which means the audience wouldn't much be able to watch the speaker.
Sure it's awkward and could have been better written, but that's not the claim I responded to.
P.S. It's interesting to compare "walking sticks" to "walking talks". No one ever interprets the former as sticks that walk. OTOH, it seems that no one interpreted the latter as talks about walking, although they certainly could have -- so it is ambiguous, after all. But nonetheless, I immediately discerned the correct meaning when I saw the title.
Devilish it's not, but awkward it is. The problem is, as you note, the miscue by "talks," which (rather than "walking") is what wants replacement: "Why not walking lectures?"
Rounthwaite said it was "devilishly difficult ... to parse". It's not ... "walking" is either a verb or an adjective, and it's clearly the latter here. And once parsed, it is easily understood, no less so than "Why not ambulatory talks?"
It can be hard to understand without being ambiguous, can't it? (I'd call the title disfluent, which isn't always bad - http://disputedissues.blogs... )
Sophistic bullshit. This is nothing like the blue dress.
"I didn't understand what it was going to be about because I didn't think of "walking" as modifying "talks""
In other words, it was simply your own failing, nothing else. You claimed that you saw "many parses", but you didn't see the obvious and correct one. Your claim was complete dishonest bullshit.
This is often the case when people see things differently -- "the dress is obviously blue", etc. I assumed the article might have been something along these lines, but mainly knew that I didn't understand what it was going to be about because I didn't think of "walking" as modifying "talks" -- I've been in your shoes plenty of times. http://business.time.com/20...
That makes no sense.
Why "Not Walking" Talks is one of many parses that I saw.
#1 -- Seriously? I found it trivial, and can't think of how to misunderstand it.
Instead of asking, just do it and see how it works out.
Sheesh.
'the provision of visual cues ... increased the accuracy of speech stimuli identification in both silence and noise'-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Its difficult looking at a speakers face while walking in groups larger than 3-5. We can assume that, like everything, different people have differing skill at audiovisual processing. The traditional speaker-at-front-facing-attendees setup allows people with differing skills to self segregate as needed (the front row is rarely the first to fill up). Most walking tours I've taken include stops where most of the talking is done, I don't believe that's what you're referring to here.
Well, duh!
Isn't this how the ancient Greek philosophical schools were organized?
They are nowadays also used for silent parties. Where people dance to music they hear on their wireless headphones. Not too different from a lecture.
Some friends and I are doing something similar: at ten minutes notice, everyone joins a conference call in their respective countries and walks for two miles while they discuss three questions together. The organizers of the call prepare the questions, and invite the participants (who often don’t know each other).
It’s been a really great experience, and I think it parallels walking lectures in several ways.
By the way, thanks for your great presentation in Berlin this month!
Everyone would need to move in the same direction, which means they would need to face the same direction, which means the audience wouldn't much be able to watch the speaker.