Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: No More Hole!

Expand Messages
  • val2160
    Hmmm, never actually seen a negative score before so maybe another index will yield a better result: Indication of the number of years of formal education that
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hmmm, never actually seen a negative score before so maybe another index will yield a better result:




      Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading
      Gunning Fog index :22.00

      Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text : 
      Coleman Liau index :15.32
      Flesh Kincaid Grade level :20.31
      ARI (Automated Readability Index) :21.64
      SMOG :17.49




      Benefit from IT provides the following typical Fog Index scores:

      Typical Fog Index Scores
      Fog IndexResources
      6 TV  guides, The Bible, Mark Twain
      8Reader's Digest
      8 - 10Most popular novels
      10Time, Newsweek
      11Wall Street Journal
      14The Times, The Guardian
      15 - 20Academic papers
      Over 20Only government sites can get away with this, because you can't ignore them.
      Over 30The government is covering something up

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi All,
      > >
      > > I've just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication
      > with the hole. I don't know If I've achieved much and I haven't 'won'
      > anything, as that's impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies
      > in that place of despair.
      > >
      > > "It's been an interesting exchange that we've had over Steiner,
      > Ostwald and materialism over the past year. You've demonstrated that you
      > don't understand primary qualities (for instance that they are
      > measurable) and cannot therefore have any understanding of their immense
      > significance for the development and success of Western science over the
      > last four hundred years (an interesting situation for someone who claims
      > to teach history of science at an Ivy League institution). In our
      > discussion of 'materialism' you have failed to provide a single
      > definition of what you understand by 'matter' and have instead spent the
      > time attacking the three standard philosophical definitions that I
      > provided and that I demonstrated matched the understanding of Ostwald
      > and Steiner. This indicates that you do not understand what materialism
      > is (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach philosophy
      > at the same institution). In spite of this failure on your part you have
      > continued to argue that I don't understand materialism, that I use the
      > term vaguely, too sweepingly and in some specialised, 'anthroposophical'
      > manner. To bolster the weakness of your position you have not scrupled
      > to the use of the full range of logical fallacies, the making of false
      > assertions and imputations, as well as invidious appeals to emotion.
      > None of the above is what one would expect from a 'scholar' and
      > 'historian' such as you claim yourself to be; it is rather what one
      > would expect of a charlatan or what others have termed an 'illusionist'.
      > >
      > > Yours for truth,
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch"
      >
      > "For example, you sometimes seem to believe that materialism is the
      > samething as naïve realism, just as Ted sometimes seems to believe
      > that materialismis the same thing as quantification and mathematization
      > and measurability."
      > Readability index calculator
      > Paste your sample text in the field below. A longer text provides a more
      > accurate measurement. Select measurement method and click 'calculate
      > score' to see the score for your text. The result is displayed below the
      > form.
      >
      > Do you have a readability formula for a different language? Pleasepost
      > an article comment
      > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2005/measuring-text-readability/>
      > and I'll add it here.
      > * Text:Method: Flesch-Kincaid (English) LIX (Swedish,
      > Danish) Fernandez-Huerta (Spanish) Douma (Dutch)
      > Kandel & Moles (French) Result
      > Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).
      >
      > Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 23.
      > Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: -5.
      >
      > The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease
      > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid> score indicates how easy
      > a text is to read. A high score implies an easy text. In comparison
      > comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get a score below
      > 10.
      >
      > The Flesch-Kincaid Grade level indicates the grade a person will have to
      > have reached to be able to understand the text. E.g. a grade level of 7
      > means that a seventh grader will be able to understand the text.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php
      > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php>
      >
    • val2160
      Result Method used: LIX (Swedish). LIX value: 66. A low LIX value indicates better readability. According to the father of LIX, a text with a value of 20 is
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        Result

        Method used: LIX (Swedish).

        LIX value: 66.

        A low LIX value indicates better readability. According to the father of LIX, a text with a value of 20 is very easy to read. A value of 50 is a difficult text. Typical legalese has a LIX value of 50 and above. Childrens litterature has a typical LIX value of 27.


        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hmmm, never actually seen a negative score before so maybe another index
        > will yield a better result:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person
        > requires in order to easily understand the text on the first
        > readingGunning Fog index :22.00
        >
        > Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend
        > the text : Coleman Liau index :15.32Flesh Kincaid Grade level :20.31ARI
        > (Automated Readability Index) :21.64SMOG :17.49
        >
        >
        >
        > http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp
        > <http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp>
        >
        >
        > Benefit from IT <http://www.benefit-from-it.com/> provides the
        > following typical Fog Index scores:
        > Typical Fog Index ScoresFog IndexResources6TV guides, The Bible, Mark
        > Twain8Reader's Digest8 - 10Most popular novels10Time, Newsweek11Wall
        > Street Journal14The Times, The Guardian15 - 20Academic papersOver 20Only
        > government sites can get away with this, because you can't ignore
        > them.Over 30The government is covering something up
        > <http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp>
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
        > wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        > > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hi All,
        > > >
        > > > I've just posted the below as what I hope is my last communication
        > > with the hole. I don't know If I've achieved much and I haven't 'won'
        > > anything, as that's impossible since logic itself shrivels up and dies
        > > in that place of despair.
        > > >
        > > > "It's been an interesting exchange that we've had over Steiner,
        > > Ostwald and materialism over the past year. You've demonstrated that
        > you
        > > don't understand primary qualities (for instance that they are
        > > measurable) and cannot therefore have any understanding of their
        > immense
        > > significance for the development and success of Western science over
        > the
        > > last four hundred years (an interesting situation for someone who
        > claims
        > > to teach history of science at an Ivy League institution). In our
        > > discussion of 'materialism' you have failed to provide a single
        > > definition of what you understand by 'matter' and have instead spent
        > the
        > > time attacking the three standard philosophical definitions that I
        > > provided and that I demonstrated matched the understanding of Ostwald
        > > and Steiner. This indicates that you do not understand what
        > materialism
        > > is (an interesting situation for someone who claims to teach
        > philosophy
        > > at the same institution). In spite of this failure on your part you
        > have
        > > continued to argue that I don't understand materialism, that I use the
        > > term vaguely, too sweepingly and in some specialised,
        > 'anthroposophical'
        > > manner. To bolster the weakness of your position you have not scrupled
        > > to the use of the full range of logical fallacies, the making of false
        > > assertions and imputations, as well as invidious appeals to emotion.
        > > None of the above is what one would expect from a 'scholar' and
        > > 'historian' such as you claim yourself to be; it is rather what one
        > > would expect of a charlatan or what others have termed an
        > 'illusionist'.
        > > >
        > > > Yours for truth,
        > > >
        > > > T.
        > > >
        > > > Ted Wrinch"


        > > "For example, you sometimes seem to believe that materialism is the
        > > samething as naïve realism, just as Ted sometimes seems to believe
        > > that materialismis the same thing as quantification and
        > mathematization
        > > and measurability."


        > > Readability index calculator
        > > Paste your sample text in the field below. A longer text provides a
        > more
        > > accurate measurement. Select measurement method and click 'calculate
        > > score' to see the score for your text. The result is displayed below
        > the
        > > form.
        > >
        > > Do you have a readability formula for a different language? Pleasepost
        > > an article comment
        > >
        > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2005/measuring-text-readability/>
        > > and I'll add it here.
        > > * Text:Method: Flesch-Kincaid (English) LIX (Swedish,
        > > Danish) Fernandez-Huerta (Spanish) Douma (Dutch)
        > > Kandel & Moles (French) Result
        > > Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).
        > >
        > > Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 23.
        > > Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: -5.
        > >
        > > The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease
        > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid> score indicates how
        > easy
        > > a text is to read. A high score implies an easy text. In comparison
        > > comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get a score below
        > > 10.
        > >
        > > The Flesch-Kincaid Grade level indicates the grade a person will have
        > to
        > > have reached to be able to understand the text. E.g. a grade level of
        > 7
        > > means that a seventh grader will be able to understand the text.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php
        > > <http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php>
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.