Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[bronnt]

"The Q and the Grey."

Chuck hates it and yet still gives it one of the most generous 2's I could imagine. Some of his other Voyager 2's include "Coda" (an episode that's boring but watchable the first time you see it, when you're not expecting all the pointless fake-outs), and "Parallax," which is stupid but in a quaint way, and is at least trying to do something with character.

"The Q and the Grey" is worse than "Twisted" or "Spirit Folk." Literally everything that happens in that episode only raises questions that are never addressed, and it only gets dumber as things go along. The worst is when Q takes Janeway into the continuum; why are there like battle lines and terrain? Q himself was able to teleport out of the continuum, and then showed up back in at a specific place-what's with the terrain and stuff? Why aren't the Qs able to just show up behind their enemies and shoot them? Q doesn't have an actual physical body like a human (he first appeared as a giant net-like thing in outer space), so why does he bleed when shot? Why would wrapping a metaphorical scrap from Janeway's metaphorical dress on Q's metaphorical wound actually do anything? If Q is the leader of the Rebels, why is he dressed like a Union soldier while the Union Qs are dressed like Johnny Reb?

Kenneth Biller did to common sense in that episode what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukranians.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

"The Q and the Grey."

Chuck hates it and yet still gives it one of the most generous 2's I could imagine. Some of his other Voyager 2's include "Coda" (an episode that's boring but watchable the first time you see it, when you're not expecting all the pointless fake-outs), and "Parallax," which is stupid but in a quaint way, and is at least trying to do something with character.

"The Q and the Grey" is worse than "Twisted" or "Spirit Folk." Literally everything that happens in that episode only raises questions that are never addressed, and it only gets dumber as things go along. The worst is when Q takes Janeway into the continuum; why are there like battle lines and terrain? Q himself was able to teleport out of the continuum, and then showed up back in at a specific place-what's with the terrain and stuff? Why aren't the Qs able to just show up behind their enemies and shoot them? Q doesn't have an actual physical body like a human (he first appeared as a giant net-like thing in outer space), so why does he bleed when shot? Why would wrapping a metaphorical scrap from Janeway's metaphorical dress on Q's metaphorical wound actually do anything? If Q is the leader of the Rebels, why is he dressed like a Union soldier while the Union Qs are dressed like Johnny Reb?

Kenneth Biller did to common sense in that episode what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukranians.

I thought the personification of 1700's battlefield was just a means of communicating it to Janeway's senses in a conceptually practical way, both physical and socially I suppose (edit: which is practically what our brains do in the form of dreams when we sleep, now that I think about it).

I don't believe I could find contention between someone's 2-rating vs a 1-rating, though Chuck does supply objective critical analysis. So, interesting disagreement.

[Riedquat]

I thought the personification of 1700's battlefield was just a means of communicating it to Janeway's senses in a conceptually practical way, both physical and socially I suppose (edit: which is practically what our brains do in the form of dreams when we sleep, now that I think about it).

Carrying it through to matching actions though, such as being able to hold General Q hostage at gunpoint or bandaging a wound though sounds rather like the criticism of the Magic Meeting Room - Where Metaphor Becomes Reality.

[AllanO]

I have noticed a new really petty disagreement that came up in the recent reuploads. In the background to Dark City video he pronounces biopic as bi-opic (short o), where it seems to me you should pronounce it as bio-pic (long o), as in bio lab versus biology laboratory (where the o is long in the abbreviation when I've heard it pronounced even though it is short in the unabbreviated word). I mean lots of people pronounce biopic the way Chuck does so I can't say its confusing or fails to communicate and I try to make that my only proscription around language but still it bugs me when I hear biopic pronounced that way, so I have to disagree a little pronouncing it that way.

I had to get that off my chest and this seemed like the place to do it.

[Riedquat]

I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced with the long o (not that it's a word I've heard spoken a great deal at all). Without looking it up I assume it's related to biography.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I have noticed a new really petty disagreement that came up in the recent reuploads. In the background to Dark City video he pronounces biopic as bi-opic (short o), where it seems to me you should pronounce it as bio-pic (long o), as in bio lab versus biology laboratory (where the o is long in the abbreviation when I've heard it pronounced even though it is short in the unabbreviated word). I mean lots of people pronounce biopic the way Chuck does so I can't say its confusing or fails to communicate and I try to make that my only proscription around language but still it bugs me when I hear biopic pronounced that way, so I have to disagree a little pronouncing it that way.

I had to get that off my chest and this seemed like the place to do it.

Well biography is with a short o. So is biology for that matter, so I'm not sure why you'd change it to a long o just because biology's shorthand does. The reason biology changes it to a long is probably because bio actually stands as its own term, even in bio-lab, and it's silly to treat it as "bi-aw". Then you have biopic, which is actually one word.

[Robovski]

I've only heard it with the long O from people I've spoken to and reviewers. But he also says vague in a way I've not heard before.

Bi-ah-pic sounds a bit like someone from New England who drops their ts describing glasses to me.

[AllanO]

Well biography is with a short o. So is biology for that matter, so I'm not sure why you'd change it to a long o just because biology's shorthand does. The reason biology changes it to a long is probably because bio actually stands as its own term, even in bio-lab, and it's silly to treat it as "bi-aw". Then you have biopic, which is actually one word.

Note that bio can also be short for biography and when I've heard that abbreviation it is pronounced with the long o ("I read his bio on Wikipedia", "Those bios are often inaccurate" and so on). Possibly it is some aspect of how we don't like to end words in English (we do end words with ah, it could be the other vowel? I-uh does not roll off the tongue maybe?)

Also note that spaces between words exist only in our minds and in orthographic convention, only if you are being overly scrupulous (or doing your William Shatner impression) would you actually have space between syllables longer between words then intraword (I think at least in English?). The ancient Greeks and Romans had no need for spaces between words in their written scripts, as do many other written scripts in use today I believe. So the distinction between bio pic and biopic is not as hard and fast as you seem to be suggesting. To me biopic is short for biographical picture and so you pronounce it as a combination of the abbreviation bio (for biography) + the abbreviation pic (for picture) and treat them as two separate words in terms of how I conceive them in my mind and so how I pronounce the new compound word they form. Anyway the whole thing is highly dependent on linguistic conventions that are highly variable over time and space and personal properties etc.

Also checking a few dictionaries it does seem to be the preferred pronunciation to have the long o, but as I said I've heard plenty of people pronounce it as Chuck did. So yeah...

[Madner Kami]

Alsonotethatspacesbetweenwordsexistonlyinourmindsandinorthographicconvention,onlyifyouarebeingoverlyscrupulous(ordoingyourWilliamShatnerimpression)wouldyouactuallyhavespacebetweensyllableslongerbetweenwordsthenintraword(IthinkatleastinEnglish?).TheancientGreeksandRomanshadnoneedforspacesbetweenwordsintheirwrittenscripts,asdomanyotherwrittenscriptsinusetodayIbelieve.

Does that work for ya? Mind•you•on•public•inscriptions•the•Romans•usually•wrote•like•this. It's normally only short inscriptions, like names, that are truely written as one word.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

lol^

Well biography is with a short o. So is biology for that matter, so I'm not sure why you'd change it to a long o just because biology's shorthand does. The reason biology changes it to a long is probably because bio actually stands as its own term, even in bio-lab, and it's silly to treat it as "bi-aw". Then you have biopic, which is actually one word.

Note that bio can also be short for biography and when I've heard that abbreviation it is pronounced with the long o ("I read his bio on Wikipedia", "Those bios are often inaccurate" and so on). Possibly it is some aspect of how we don't like to end words in English (we do end words with ah, it could be the other vowel? I-uh does not roll off the tongue maybe?)

Also note that spaces between words exist only in our minds and in orthographic convention, only if you are being overly scrupulous (or doing your William Shatner impression) would you actually have space between syllables longer between words then intraword (I think at least in English?). The ancient Greeks and Romans had no need for spaces between words in their written scripts, as do many other written scripts in use today I believe. So the distinction between bio pic and biopic is not as hard and fast as you seem to be suggesting. To me biopic is short for biographical picture and so you pronounce it as a combination of the abbreviation bio (for biography) + the abbreviation pic (for picture) and treat them as two separate words in terms of how I conceive them in my mind and so how I pronounce the new compound word they form. Anyway the whole thing is highly dependent on linguistic conventions that are highly variable over time and space and personal properties etc.

Also checking a few dictionaries it does seem to be the preferred pronunciation to have the long o, but as I said I've heard plenty of people pronounce it as Chuck did. So yeah...

Spaces actually aren't non-existent, they are just handled differently between scripts and phonetics. Let's take "scripts and phonetics" for instance; it's correct that we don't stop after "scripts" in order to properly pronounce "and," we say, "script sand phonetics." English makes no formal distinction of it, but romantic languages do employ formal rules of the pronunciation that make it seem less colloquial of a practice and serve to elicit distinction when it's actively avoided in specific cases.

Anyways, what you said in the first paragraph is consistent with pretty much everything I said, though you're right that bio is a discrete word in itself. Biopic though is indeed one word and not subject to the apparent rule of spaces being frivolous.