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

Re: No More Hole!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.