Discussion:
The unfunny clown
Add Reply
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-22 03:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The unfunny clown

An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
J. J. Lodder
2017-11-22 10:52:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
Is there another kind?

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-22 11:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
Is there another kind?
Jan
The stupid clown
Mack A. Damia
2017-11-22 16:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 03:53:25 -0800 (PST), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
Is there another kind?
Jan
The stupid clown
"Ridi, Pagliaccio, e ognun applaudirà!
Tramuta in lazzi lo spasmo ed il pianto
in una smorfia il singhiozzo e 'l dolor, Ah!"


b***@gmail.com
2017-11-23 19:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 03:53:25 -0800 (PST), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
Is there another kind?
Jan
The stupid clown
"Ridi, Pagliaccio, e ognun applaudirą!
Tramuta in lazzi lo spasmo ed il pianto
in una smorfia il singhiozzo e 'l dolor, Ah!"
http://youtu.be/-kbi1EMcD3E
this is one of the few renditions of Vesti La Giubba i've ever seen where the clown actually couldn't fit into the jacket and just went for the makeup instead -- -bozo de niro-
Harrison Hill
2017-11-22 18:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he? I'm not
convinced that he holds himself out to be a
"pseudo-scientist".
David Kleinecke
2017-11-22 18:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he? I'm not
convinced that he holds himself out to be a
"pseudo-scientist".
He holds himself out to be a SCIENTIST. It's the rest of
us who is pseudos.
Arindam Banerjee
2017-11-23 22:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he? I'm not
convinced that he holds himself out to be a
"pseudo-scientist".
He holds himself out to be a SCIENTIST. It's the rest of
us who is pseudos.
Only one that is original, the rest are fakes. Or careerists, to put it kindly.
g***@gmail.com
2017-11-26 21:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Janet
2017-12-01 13:58:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.

If you ever get chance to see a current "clown", I can't recommend
this highly enough. He tours worldwide. I've been to see Slavasnowshow
in both Glasgow and Edinburgh; absolutely magical experience.

http://slavasnowshow.co.uk/


Janet.
Wayne Brown
2017-12-06 01:07:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.

But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
Post by Janet
If you ever get chance to see a current "clown", I can't recommend
this highly enough. He tours worldwide. I've been to see Slavasnowshow
in both Glasgow and Edinburgh; absolutely magical experience.
http://slavasnowshow.co.uk/
Janet.
--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
David Kleinecke
2017-12-06 05:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
b***@shaw.ca
2017-12-06 07:19:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
Wikipedia suggests several 19-centry antecedents, but credits Stephen King's
"It" for (with?) creating "the modern archetype".

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_clown>

bill
Jerry Friedman
2017-12-06 15:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
Wikipedia suggests several 19-centry antecedents, but credits Stephen King's
"It" for (with?) creating "the modern archetype".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_clown>
John Wayne Gacy, who entertained children as "Pogo the Clown" and raped
and murdered a number of teenage boys and young men, might get some
"credit" too. His story became public in 1978, as far as I can tell
from Wikipedia.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-06 19:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
Wikipedia suggests several 19-centry antecedents, but credits Stephen King's
"It" for (with?) creating "the modern archetype".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_clown>
John Wayne Gacy, who entertained children as "Pogo the Clown" and raped
and murdered a number of teenage boys and young men, might get some
"credit" too. His story became public in 1978, as far as I can tell
from Wikipedia.
Clown aficionados took one look at Pogo and knew there was something wrong,
because the corners of his painted mouth came to a point instead of a curve.
Sam Plusnet
2017-12-07 20:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
Wikipedia suggests several 19-centry antecedents, but credits Stephen King's
"It" for (with?) creating "the modern archetype".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_clown>
John Wayne Gacy, who entertained children as "Pogo the Clown" and raped
and murdered a number of teenage boys and young men, might get some
"credit" too. His story became public in 1978, as far as I can tell
from Wikipedia.
Clown aficionados took one look at Pogo and knew there was something wrong,
because the corners of his painted mouth came to a point instead of a curve.
Tricky, since that would limit the range of possible designs.

I read somewhere that, in the British clown tradition (and elsewhere for
all I know) each clown had to have his own 'unique' make-up design.
There was a central body which kept a copy each clown's design on
eggshells.
I'm not sure if the Clown Museum at Wookey Hole is the original.
--
Sam Plusnet
RH Draney
2017-12-07 20:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
I read somewhere that, in the British clown tradition (and elsewhere for
all I know) each clown had to have his own 'unique' make-up design.
There was a central body which kept a copy each clown's design on
eggshells.
The registry was depicted in an episode of "The Avengers" back in the
early post-Emma Peel era...the keeper of the registry (a jittery man
rightly worried that someone would break all the eggs) was played by
John Cleese....r
Mack A. Damia
2017-12-07 21:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Sam Plusnet
I read somewhere that, in the British clown tradition (and elsewhere for
all I know) each clown had to have his own 'unique' make-up design.
There was a central body which kept a copy each clown's design on
eggshells.
The registry was depicted in an episode of "The Avengers" back in the
early post-Emma Peel era...the keeper of the registry (a jittery man
rightly worried that someone would break all the eggs) was played by
John Cleese....r
https://web.archive.org/web/20120616063212/http://www.allaboutclowns.com/egg_registry.html
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-12-07 21:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Sam Plusnet
I read somewhere that, in the British clown tradition (and elsewhere
for all I know) each clown had to have his own 'unique' make-up
design. There was a central body which kept a copy each clown's
design on eggshells.
The registry was depicted in an episode of "The Avengers" back in the
early post-Emma Peel era...the keeper of the registry (a jittery man
rightly worried that someone would break all the eggs) was played by
John Cleese....r
So that's where pTerry got it from.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-07 22:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
Wikipedia suggests several 19-centry antecedents, but credits Stephen King's
"It" for (with?) creating "the modern archetype".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_clown>
John Wayne Gacy, who entertained children as "Pogo the Clown" and raped
and murdered a number of teenage boys and young men, might get some
"credit" too. His story became public in 1978, as far as I can tell
from Wikipedia.
Clown aficionados took one look at Pogo and knew there was something wrong,
because the corners of his painted mouth came to a point instead of a curve.
Tricky, since that would limit the range of possible designs.
After I heard that (remember, I was there when Gacy was discovered), I began
noticing that the observation was correct. Actual clowns don't have pointy
mouth-painting.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I read somewhere that, in the British clown tradition (and elsewhere for
all I know) each clown had to have his own 'unique' make-up design.
It's been a plot point on *Modern Family* ...

(Do you get that Over There? It's an amusing portrait of our upper middle class
and the concept of "blended family.")
Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a central body which kept a copy each clown's design on
eggshells.
I find that rather hard to believe.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I'm not sure if the Clown Museum at Wookey Hole is the original.
There's a famous Clown College in Sarasota, Florida, longtime (but no longer)
winter home of the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus.
Neill Massello
2017-12-08 00:28:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
I read somewhere that, in the British clown tradition (and elsewhere for
all I know) each clown had to have his own 'unique' make-up design.
There was a central body which kept a copy each clown's design on
eggshells.
I'm not sure if the Clown Museum at Wookey Hole is the original.
Is there no Ministry of Silly Faces?
Wayne Brown
2017-12-06 22:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
I always thought of the Joker as taking his name and appearance from
the playing cards called "jokers" which I associate with medieval
court jesters rather than with modern clowns.
--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
David Kleinecke
2017-12-06 23:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
The Batman's Joker goes back to the 1940's and I suspect he
had many antecedents.
I always thought of the Joker as taking his name and appearance from
the playing cards called "jokers" which I associate with medieval
court jesters rather than with modern clowns.
I think the average American of the 1940's thought of court
jesters as clowns in the sense of the clowns they all saw
in circuses. This identification may not have extended outside
middle America. I know my English teacher had considerable
trouble explaining the Shakespearean notion of "clown".

And even "Il Pagliacci" (and its antecedents) may have had
some impact.
Janet
2017-12-06 14:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 01:07:44 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: The unfunny clown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades?
Pretty obvious.

Until two or three decades ago, and the advent of home computers, there
were no social media where ordinary people had a free platform to share
their thoughts and childhood experience with the world.

Janet.
Jerry Friedman
2017-12-06 15:20:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
I took a quick look at Google Books and didn't find anything before 1980,
though "afraid of clowns" (without the quotation marks) gets plenty of
hits now.

In addition to children being ashamed to admit it, I suspect parents
discouraged them from doing so
--
Jerry Friedman
Cheryl
2017-12-06 15:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:58:17 in article
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
I took a quick look at Google Books and didn't find anything before 1980,
though "afraid of clowns" (without the quotation marks) gets plenty of
hits now.
In addition to children being ashamed to admit it, I suspect parents
discouraged them from doing so
Very young children are often afraid of strange people, and learn not to
be. For example, they are sometimes afraid of Santa Claus the first time
they're taken to see one, but later learn not to be.

Clowns were even rarer than Santa Clauses when I was a child, so I never
either liked or feared them. I suppose I must have seen clowns in books
or, later, on TV, but they made no real impact on me. Even Santa Claus,
seen maybe once or twice at Christmas time, was a more familiar figure.
I wonder if, in earlier days, children were less familiar with clowns
than they are now, unless they happened to be taken to circuses.
--
Cheryl
Tak To
2017-12-06 18:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Janet
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Pierrot is the unfunny clown, isn't he?
Damn' right --- scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.
Me too. I was terrified of clowns as a child.
I was born in 1955, and when the television miniseries based on
Steven King's 1986 novel "It" came out in 1990, that was the first
time I had ever encountered the concept of a clown being frightening.
I thought it was a new and very original idea to base a story around
a clown being scary instead of funny. And when I later found the 1988
campy comedy movie "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" I wondered if that
film also got it's inspiration from King's book. It was years more
before I noticed the same idea being talked about in other contexts.
But in recent years I've seen many references in books, television
shows, movies, and real life to people being afraid of clowns.
It seems very weird to me, as if all of a sudden some new anti-clown
fashion had started, but like you many people say their fear of clowns
goes all the way back to their childhoods. I wonder how I never came
across that idea anywhere until the last two or three decades? How did
I miss what seems to be such a pervasive idea? Were people just
ashamed of admitting their fear of clowns until comparatively recently?
I think a clown's face per se is unnatural and can be seen as
either funny or creepy. In an earlier era people rarely saw a
clown's face close up -- they mainly saw clowns doing funny things
at a distance so the funny feeling over comes the creepy feeling
and people associate a clown's face with happy things.

Later, due to a combination of factors -- the proliferation of
children's TV programs with clowns, the popularity of hiring
clowns for children's birthday or other events, the wide-
spread use of clowns in logos and ads, etc -- children become
more exposed to clowns who are not at their funny moments, and
thus may not have a chance to overcome the innate sense of
creepiness completely.

In short, some children are anxious about clowns because they
have been over-clowned.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
RH Draney
2017-12-07 03:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
I think a clown's face per se is unnatural and can be seen as
either funny or creepy. In an earlier era people rarely saw a
clown's face close up -- they mainly saw clowns doing funny things
at a distance so the funny feeling over comes the creepy feeling
and people associate a clown's face with happy things.
Later, due to a combination of factors -- the proliferation of
children's TV programs with clowns, the popularity of hiring
clowns for children's birthday or other events, the wide-
spread use of clowns in logos and ads, etc -- children become
more exposed to clowns who are not at their funny moments, and
thus may not have a chance to overcome the innate sense of
creepiness completely.
In short, some children are anxious about clowns because they
have been over-clowned.
The majority of jacks-in-the-box in my childhood were painted as
clowns...surely the experience of having such a creature pop up at you
suddenly and unexpectedly has contributed to the trauma....r
Tak To
2017-12-07 04:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Tak To
I think a clown's face per se is unnatural and can be seen as
either funny or creepy. In an earlier era people rarely saw a
clown's face close up -- they mainly saw clowns doing funny things
at a distance so the funny feeling over comes the creepy feeling
and people associate a clown's face with happy things.
Later, due to a combination of factors -- the proliferation of
children's TV programs with clowns, the popularity of hiring
clowns for children's birthday or other events, the wide-
spread use of clowns in logos and ads, etc -- children become
more exposed to clowns who are not at their funny moments, and
thus may not have a chance to overcome the innate sense of
creepiness completely.
In short, some children are anxious about clowns because they
have been over-clowned.
The majority of jacks-in-the-box in my childhood were painted as
clowns...surely the experience of having such a creature pop up at you
suddenly and unexpectedly has contributed to the trauma....r
That won't explain the generational difference. Or perhaps
you don't think there is one.

(There were no jacks-in-the-box where I grew up so I can't tell
you how I feel about them when I was a kid.)
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2017-11-26 21:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
Not only unfunny but many scientists are "unhonest":

Forwarded posts:

One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

By Hannah Devlin
The Times, UK
Thursday, June 4, 2009

Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial
conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than
previously thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of
colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct
by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that
they have observed fellow scientists engage in
"questionable practices", such as presenting data
selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in
response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own
behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked
results.

Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who
carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile
cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean
scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data,
are less unusual than is generally assumed. "Increasing
evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of
the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered," he
said.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS
One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct
surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results
paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and
misrepresentation are widespread.

In all the surveys people were asked about both their own
research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct
was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual
invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under
the heading "questionable practices". These included
dropping data points based on a "gut feeling" and failing
to publish data that contradict one's previous research.

The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning
up to misconduct and those having been observed by
colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over
anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. "Anyone who has ever
falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it
despite all guarantees of anonymity."

The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although
higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to
be conservative.

Another explanation for the differences between the self-
report results and colleague-report results could be that
people consider themselves to be more moral than others.
In a marginal case, people might characterise their
colleagues' behaviour as misconduct more readily than
they would their own.

The study included scientists from a range of
disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted
by medical or pharmacological researchers than others,
supporting fears that the field of medical research is
being biased by commercial interests.

Related Links

* Plastic Fantastic by Eugenie Samuel Reich
* Drug company 'failed to disclose death rates'
* Shamed scientist created world's first 'virgin birth'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece

1 Posted on June 3, 2009 in part by bruinbirdman

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To: bruinbirdman

[ These included dropping data points based on a "gut
[ feeling" and failing to publish data that contradict
[ one's previous research.

There's your 'Global Warming' right there.

2 Posted on June 3, 2009 Jack Hammer (here)

Reply to 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-To: bruinbirdman

Peer Review.

3 posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 by trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -
The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)

Reply to 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-To: bruinbirdman

for global warming whackos it is closer to 99 percent.

4 Posted on June 3, 2009 by Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than
Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)

Reply to 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of forwarded posts.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-08 01:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data
By Hannah Devlin
The Times, UK
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial
conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than
previously thought, a study suggests.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of
colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct
by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that
they have observed fellow scientists engage in
"questionable practices", such as presenting data
selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in
response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own
behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked
results.
Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who
carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile
cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean
scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data,
are less unusual than is generally assumed. "Increasing
evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of
the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered," he
said.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS
One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct
surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results
paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and
misrepresentation are widespread.
In all the surveys people were asked about both their own
research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct
was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual
invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under
the heading "questionable practices". These included
dropping data points based on a "gut feeling" and failing
to publish data that contradict one's previous research.
The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning
up to misconduct and those having been observed by
colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over
anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. "Anyone who has ever
falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it
despite all guarantees of anonymity."
The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although
higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to
be conservative.
Another explanation for the differences between the self-
report results and colleague-report results could be that
people consider themselves to be more moral than others.
In a marginal case, people might characterise their
colleagues' behaviour as misconduct more readily than
they would their own.
The study included scientists from a range of
disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted
by medical or pharmacological researchers than others,
supporting fears that the field of medical research is
being biased by commercial interests.
Related Links
* Plastic Fantastic by Eugenie Samuel Reich
* Drug company 'failed to disclose death rates'
* Shamed scientist created world's first 'virgin birth'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece
1 Posted on June 3, 2009 in part by bruinbirdman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: bruinbirdman
[ These included dropping data points based on a "gut
[ feeling" and failing to publish data that contradict
[ one's previous research.
There's your 'Global Warming' right there.
2 Posted on June 3, 2009 Jack Hammer (here)
Reply to 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-To: bruinbirdman
Peer Review.
3 posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 by trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -
The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
Reply to 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-To: bruinbirdman
for global warming whackos it is closer to 99 percent.
4 Posted on June 3, 2009 by Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than
Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
Reply to 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded posts.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-12-08 11:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:01:50 -0800 (PST), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
That is an incorrect statement.

"Dishonest" implies that they know that "e=mcc=hv" is wrong and possibly
that they know a more accurate statement.

They do not.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data
By Hannah Devlin
The Times, UK
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial
conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than
previously thought, a study suggests.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of
colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct
by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that
they have observed fellow scientists engage in
"questionable practices", such as presenting data
selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in
response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own
behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked
results.
Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who
carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile
cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean
scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data,
are less unusual than is generally assumed. "Increasing
evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of
the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered," he
said.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS
One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct
surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results
paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and
misrepresentation are widespread.
In all the surveys people were asked about both their own
research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct
was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual
invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under
the heading "questionable practices". These included
dropping data points based on a "gut feeling" and failing
to publish data that contradict one's previous research.
The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning
up to misconduct and those having been observed by
colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over
anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. "Anyone who has ever
falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it
despite all guarantees of anonymity."
The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although
higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to
be conservative.
Another explanation for the differences between the self-
report results and colleague-report results could be that
people consider themselves to be more moral than others.
In a marginal case, people might characterise their
colleagues' behaviour as misconduct more readily than
they would their own.
The study included scientists from a range of
disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted
by medical or pharmacological researchers than others,
supporting fears that the field of medical research is
being biased by commercial interests.
Related Links
* Plastic Fantastic by Eugenie Samuel Reich
* Drug company 'failed to disclose death rates'
* Shamed scientist created world's first 'virgin birth'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece
1 Posted on June 3, 2009 in part by bruinbirdman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: bruinbirdman
[ These included dropping data points based on a "gut
[ feeling" and failing to publish data that contradict
[ one's previous research.
There's your 'Global Warming' right there.
2 Posted on June 3, 2009 Jack Hammer (here)
Reply to 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-To: bruinbirdman
Peer Review.
3 posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 by trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -
The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
Reply to 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-To: bruinbirdman
for global warming whackos it is closer to 99 percent.
4 Posted on June 3, 2009 by Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than
Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
Reply to 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded posts.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-08 12:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:01:50 -0800 (PST), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
That is an incorrect statement.
"Dishonest" implies that they know that "e=mcc=hv" is wrong and possibly
that they know a more accurate statement.
They do not.
They do.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2017-12-08 12:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:01:50 -0800 (PST), Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously
dishonest.
That is an incorrect statement.
"Dishonest" implies that they know that "e=mcc=hv" is wrong and
possibly that they know a more accurate statement.
They do not.
They do.
It's Panto Season!
Richard Tobin
2017-12-08 12:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously
dishonest.
That is an incorrect statement.
"Dishonest" implies that they know that "e=mcc=hv" is wrong and
possibly that they know a more accurate statement.
They do not.
They do.
It's Panto Season!
Oh no it isn't!

-- Richard
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-12-08 18:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
That is an incorrect statement.
"Dishonest" implies that they know that "e=mcc=hv" is wrong and
possibly that they know a more accurate statement.
They do not.
They do.
It's Panto Season!
Oh no it isn't!
I think that the last time I went to a pantomime the major attraction
was Yana. Those who have heard of Yana are probably as old as I am and
will be able to judge how long ago that was.
--
athel
Sam Plusnet
2017-12-08 23:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
That is an incorrect statement.
"Dishonest" implies that they know that "e=mcc=hv" is wrong and
possibly that they know a more accurate statement.
They do not.
They do.
It's Panto Season!
Oh no it isn't!
"They're all conspiring behind you!"
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2017-12-08 19:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
It is merely a convesion between units nowadays.
It can't possibly be dishonest,
in the same way that 12 inches to a foot
cannot be dishonest,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-09 09:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
It is merely a convesion between units nowadays.
It can't possibly be dishonest,
in the same way that 12 inches to a foot
cannot be dishonest,
Jan
So what's a foot? The foot of a baby or the foot of an elephant? Or a bird?
In the e=mcc=hv scenario there are no absolutes.
J. J. Lodder
2017-12-09 12:15:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
It is merely a convesion between units nowadays.
It can't possibly be dishonest,
in the same way that 12 inches to a foot
cannot be dishonest,
Jan
So what's a foot? The foot of a baby or the foot of an elephant? Or a bird?
In the e=mcc=hv scenario there are no absolutes.
But of course there are. (boring mode on, sorry to the others)
A foot is 12 inches (exactly)
An inch is 0.0254 m (exactly)
A meter is 1/299792458 times the distance
light travels in one second (exactly)
A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods (exactly)
of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
(on the rotating geoid, measurable relativistic corrections apply)

Next year the standard kilogram will be defined
by giving Planck's constant a defined value too. (exactly)

Beyond you probably, but the net result of it all is that
E = m c^2 will be exactly true,
by definition of the quantities involved,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2017-12-10 21:21:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
In alt.usage.english, in article
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The unfunny clown
An expression to describe the most positively the
e=mcc=hv babbling pseudo-scientist.
All e=mcc=hv types are not only "unhonest" but disastrously dishonest.
It is merely a convesion between units nowadays.
It can't possibly be dishonest,
in the same way that 12 inches to a foot
cannot be dishonest,
Jan
So what's a foot? The foot of a baby or the foot of an elephant? Or a bird?
In the e=mcc=hv scenario there are no absolutes.
But of course there are. (boring mode on, sorry to the others)
No. Relativity means no absolutes, except the speed of light.

Its corollary is there are no abstract absolute principles like shame, honour,
truth, love, goodness.

Equating degenerate rubbish with the highest creativity is ever the goal of
the e=mcc=hv relativist.

Which is why, with the abolition of shame in public life, so much money is
to be made by parading naked women for advertising purposes.

The disgusting modern western culture, with indiscrimiate bombings, fattenings,
pornography, horrid art and music - all follow from relativity which of course
says that there are no absolute standards.

The only absolute for the relativist in the practical sense is MONEY.
Post by J. J. Lodder
A foot is 12 inches (exactly)
No. by e=mcc logic all lengths vary with speed.

They actually do vary with speed.

They gotta vary with speed, as the only absolute in e=mcc stuff is the
speed of light.

Like money is the only constant in the life of the materialist-atheist.
Post by J. J. Lodder
An inch is 0.0254 m (exactly)
A meter is 1/299792458 times the distance
light travels in one second (exactly)
A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods (exactly)
of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
(on the rotating geoid, measurable relativistic corrections apply)
All these change with the relativistic Lorentz transformation, which shows
there is no absolute value.

Time, space, matter - they all vary with speed and the great political goal
here is to stick humanity to Earth by "proving" with the Lorentz transformation
that warps the whole universe, distorts it hideously, that nothing can travel
faster than light. And so, travel to the stars is impossible.

To pretend that there are absolute isses, when abolishing them with waves of
piggy tails, is also something absolute to be expected from the disgusting
relativist.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Next year the standard kilogram will be defined
by giving Planck's constant a defined value too. (exactly)
Beyond you probably, but the net result of it all is that
E = m c^2 will be exactly true,
by definition of the quantities involved,
Whether the disgusting e=mcc=hv lots are greater schizophrenics or greater
hypocrites, is something for future generations to work out.

Already there is sufficient schizphrenia about the nature of light with the
ridiculous de Broglie hypothesis!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
Loading...