• BBC subtitles

    From jon@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 30 17:33:55 2024
    Using the word refraction instead of reflection when reporting on
    Southport.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JMB99@21:1/5 to jon on Tue Jul 30 23:09:54 2024
    On 30/07/2024 18:33, jon wrote:
    Using the word refraction instead of reflection when reporting on
    Southport.



    In what context?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jon@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 1 20:21:02 2024
    On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:09:54 +0100, JMB99 wrote:

    On 30/07/2024 18:33, jon wrote:
    Using the word refraction instead of reflection when reporting on
    Southport.



    In what context?

    The incorrect one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to jon on Thu Aug 1 22:58:09 2024
    On 01/08/2024 21:21, jon wrote:
    On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:09:54 +0100, JMB99 wrote:

    On 30/07/2024 18:33, jon wrote:
    Using the word refraction instead of reflection when reporting on
    Southport.



    In what context?

    The incorrect one.


    Since Jon hasn't actually answered JMB's question in helpful way, I'll
    hazard a guess at what the context *might* have been:

    Maybe the reporter talked about needing "a period of reflection" (contemplation; stepping back from the problem of the "unrest" to think
    about why it may have happened).

    I would guess that it wasn't "reflection" in the mirror-image, optical
    sense of the word, even if "refraction" is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jon@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 2 05:01:48 2024
    On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 22:58:09 +0100, NY wrote:

    On 01/08/2024 21:21, jon wrote:
    On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:09:54 +0100, JMB99 wrote:

    On 30/07/2024 18:33, jon wrote:
    Using the word refraction instead of reflection when reporting on
    Southport.



    In what context?

    The incorrect one.


    Since Jon hasn't actually answered JMB's question in helpful way, I'll
    hazard a guess at what the context *might* have been:

    Maybe the reporter talked about needing "a period of reflection" (contemplation; stepping back from the problem of the "unrest" to think
    about why it may have happened).

    I would guess that it wasn't "reflection" in the mirror-image, optical
    sense of the word, even if "refraction" is.

    I don't like to spell it out for people, its important to give them credit
    for some common sense. It was clearly a mistake with Artificial
    Insemination, sorry 'AI' has changed its meaning again. No optics involved.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to jon on Fri Aug 2 12:20:26 2024
    On 02/08/2024 06:01, jon wrote:
    On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 22:58:09 +0100, NY wrote:

    On 01/08/2024 21:21, jon wrote:
    On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:09:54 +0100, JMB99 wrote:

    On 30/07/2024 18:33, jon wrote:
    Using the word refraction instead of reflection when reporting on
    Southport.

    In what context?

    The incorrect one.


    Since Jon hasn't actually answered JMB's question in helpful way, I'll
    hazard a guess at what the context *might* have been:

    Maybe the reporter talked about needing "a period of reflection"
    (contemplation; stepping back from the problem of the "unrest" to think
    about why it may have happened).

    I would guess that it wasn't "reflection" in the mirror-image, optical
    sense of the word, even if "refraction" is.

    I don't like to spell it out for people, its important to give them credit for some common sense. It was clearly a mistake with Artificial
    Insemination, sorry 'AI' has changed its meaning again. No optics involved.

    You need to give people *some* context if they didn't see the event that
    you are referring to. OK, so for some unspecified reason in the
    Southport reports, the word "reflection" was used. You don't seem to
    want to give us the context, as if we should be able to guess it. Maybe
    I guessed correctly, maybe I didn't. And that word was mis-subtitled as "refraction". Intriguing that in this case, unlike a lot of subtitle mondegreens, the two words in this case happened to have a link
    (optics). Chance or not? Maybe in the context that "reflection" was
    used, "refraction" might have fitted if the AI in the speech-to-text translation tried to guess the right word because it didn't quite "hear"
    the word in the reporter's report. Knowing the context would have
    allowed us to judge whether that was the case.

    There is no harm in stating the obvious; the only "sin" is to give
    people so little information that they can't work out what you are
    getting at. Remember - you were there, we weren't.

    "You should be able to work it out" is infuriating - the very reason
    that we are asking because you *haven't* given us enough information to
    be able to work it out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)