Down in Front: - This week, SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD.

No. Free booze all night.

 

...which means I will be there.

 

This week, Twilight..

And on March 4th, giant live show in LA. Come, man!

 

This week, Pulp Fiction..

And on March 4th, giant live show in LA. Come, man!

 

RAIDERS.

 

The two-year anniversary!

 

Dorkman's unofficial announcement that you will be doing the pirates movies is the greatest news i ever heard in life...ever

 

You guys talk about doing TV shows and I just wanted to ask this. Have you ever heard of a 2010 first season of a BBC show called Sherlock? Stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Check out the first episode, if you get the chance. All of the episodes (three) are 90 minutes, so it kinda count as a movie, right?

Sherlock (BBC, 2010), 'A Study In Pink', the first episode.

 

The Incredibles.

 

Invasion of the...Body...Snatchers?

 

Your website.

It's a...MySpace.

 

Sherlock is awesome. I love the editing in "A Study In Pink", especially. I can see some things they did becoming a sign of editing in the future.

In the meantime, I'm not sure if you should do serialized TV shows -- imagine having to watch multiple seasons of something to catch up to listen to a commentary? On the other hand -- I can see y'alls finding a way to pull it off.

Congrats on entering your third year -- I've been listening for a while, but wanted to let you know it's appreciated. Especially the clarity of your audio. It's awesome being able to listen to a well-recorded podcast, especially when it's so long. Well done!

 

Thanks!

 

I want to add that I find your theme music oddly catchy and addicting.

 

Hi, everyone, I'm Ryan Wieber.
You might remember me from such nerdery as occasional guest panelist on "Down In Front", or YouTube sensation, "Star Wars Episode II: Alternate Lightsaber Duel".

*sits down in large chair next to fireplace and removes glasses*

I'd like to talk with you for a few moments about the word "addicting".


As you might already be aware, there is a perfectly good word to use when describing something that causes addiction. That word is "addictive". You could say someone has an addictive personality. Or simply state that Bejeweled 2 is addictive. Let's explore a similar word for a moment, and say that Rachel McAdams is attractive. I wouldn't say she is attracting. She causes, or is the source of, attraction. Similar to how something addictive causes, or is the source of addiction. I would say that Klingons are aggressive, not aggressing. Teague might say that the new sex-offender law is unfairly restrictive, not restricting.

"But Ryan," you might be saying, "Addicting is a real word! It's in the dictionary!"

I have two things to say in regard to that. Firstly, that the dictionary is not the end-all bible of appropriate language and grammar. That might seem like an oxymoronic statement, but in actuality, the dictionary is a constantly evolving archive, adding new words each year. You might be wondering how they decide what words are allowed into the dictionary. The answer is, quite simply, "usage". Editors sample "published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications" for new words. Meaning that even completely bogus, misused, or flat-out invented words can get into the dictionary just because more and more people use them. (Come on, they have a quota to fill. They have new dictionaries to sell every year.) I mention this simply to challenge your perceptions of the dictionary as the authoritative end-all, and encourage a little bit of deeper thought.

That being said, it brings me to my second point. Which is that I technically do not contest the existence of the word "additcing" itself, I contest its usage in popular culture. I think we can mostly thank pre-teens and sites like "addictingGames.com" for propegating the use of "additing" in synonymous substitution of "addictive". Personally, I think it makes people sound like they were poorly educated. However, I do think there is an appropriate usage of "addicting" I would like to explain, with acknowledgement to the fact that we are venturing into a conversation of opinion.

"Addictive" is used to describe something that causes addiction, with the word "addict", which, when used as a verb, is defined as "to cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on an addictive substance, as alcohol or a narcotic." So we can say that television is addictive, or smoking raisins is addictive. "Addicting" is not describing, but instead is indicating an action, like "running" or "talking" or "sexually harassing". (All "ing" words) It is not used to describe an object or person, but rather to describe the action it is performing on someone. For example, "Teague has been addicting Bo to E-cigarettes" or, "The internet is addicting Tommy to pornography". This is more closely related to "addicting"'s use in a medical context, as I understand it.

It works this way for lots of other words we're all used to as well. For example, someone taking a phone call in a movie theater is disruptive. He himself is not disrupting. You wouldn't describe him as a disrupting person. But you would say that taking that call was disrupting your viewing experience.

So please, join me in using "addictive" and "addicting" more appropriately, and understand that most of the time, you really mean "addictive".
Thanks for your time.

*puts glasses back on and opens book as camera dollies back*
*fade to black*

Edit: Join me next week for a discussion on why when you have an itch, you "scratch" it with your finger, not "itch" it.

 

Well said Ryan!!

I have to get at people all the time for that one, bugs the hell out of me.

Also, I've started to see the word "lighted", in place of "lit" or "lit up", quite a bit lately.

 

That?s how all language works. May as well go back to speeking Latin or Aramaic if you're going to get picky.

 

English does not derive from either language. Aramaic is a Semitic language, a completely different linguistic developmental path, and while both Latin and English have Indo-European roots, the Romance and Germanic language families developed separately. Although Latin can be said to have heavily influenced modern English by way of French.

If you're going to get picky.

/don't start nothin won't be nothin

Also, why did this come up? Did someone say "addicting" in the INCREDIBLES commentary or did this get confused this with the Social Thread?

 

Look up at Sojourn's post right before Ryan's.

 

Fair points, all.

Shows what I get for complimenting your music. SHEESH.

 

I still agree with your original point. I love all of Teague's It's Godless and Beeps work, and would buy his album if he released one.

 

You have single handedly encouraged me.

Which most folks will tell you is a bad, bad idea.

(Thanks. )

 

Look at you people and all your smarts.
I have nothing to add to the discussion of language other than to say "How the hell do you know these things?"

Hmm. Ryan does have a history of doing that.

 

If it means I get an album out of you, totally worth it.

(You're welcome. )

 

I had no idea about this until you mentioned it, and I've been following Teague's work for some time now. How did I miss it? Thanks for the heads up (and the great work, Fig!)!