Discussion:
Claptrap, balderdash
(too old to reply)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 07:02:02 UTC
Permalink
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-04 09:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
You mean people like Erwin Schroedinger, or Francis Crick,
or perhaps Manfred Eigen?

Can't think of anything,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 09:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
You mean people like Erwin Schroedinger, or Francis Crick,
or perhaps Manfred Eigen?
No. All of those learned something about biology first. Richard Feynman
likewise. I think of them as good guys.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-04 12:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
You mean people like Erwin Schroedinger, or Francis Crick,
or perhaps Manfred Eigen?
No. All of those learned something about biology first. Richard Feynman
likewise. I think of them as good guys.
The question did not need an answer.
I think you are on very dangerous ground here.
The people you despise might turn out to know more about evolution
than you would give them credit for.
And they will probably reply in kind.

Certain midnight thoughts are best forgotten,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 14:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
You mean people like Erwin Schroedinger, or Francis Crick,
or perhaps Manfred Eigen?
No. All of those learned something about biology first. Richard Feynman
likewise. I think of them as good guys.
Actually I'm not sure Crick knew much about biology in 1953, but he
talked to people who did. Afterwards he learned a great deal.
Nonetheless, Erwin Chargaff accused Crick and Watson of "practising
biochemistry without a licence" and in a sense he was right. The fact
that their structure was correct didn't make any difference, and
Chargaff's reputation as a curmudgeon hasn't suffered.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The question did not need an answer.
I think you are on very dangerous ground here.
The people you despise might turn out to know more about evolution
than you would give them credit for.
And they will probably reply in kind.
They won't, because I'm not planning to publish my thoughts, and unless
they follow this news group and can guess that I'm referring to them
they won't ever know.

One correction, though, my original post should have had "some" before
"physicists".
Post by J. J. Lodder
Certain midnight thoughts are best forgotten,
Jan
--
athel
occam
2018-10-04 14:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Actually I'm not sure Crick knew much about biology in 1953, but he
talked to people who did. Afterwards he learned a great deal.
Nonetheless, Erwin Chargaff accused Crick and Watson of "practising
biochemistry without a licence" and in a sense he was right.
In what sense would that be? Anyone who can bring a new perspective to
a discipline is worth listening to - licensed or unlicensed.

I hope your negative thoughts about mathematicians and physicists is not
founded on the "not one of us" prejudice. Traditionally biology has been
a suck-it-and-see-then-classify discipline. Evolutionary biology and
genetics have introduced the much needed mathematical tools to give the
discipline a more respected status. A lot of it however still lacks a
'model' in the mathematical sense i.e. one capable of predicting
(biological) system behaviours.

Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model. Can you point
to one such model in biology?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The fact
that their structure was correct didn't make any difference, and
Chargaff's reputation as a curmudgeon hasn't suffered.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 15:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Actually I'm not sure Crick knew much about biology in 1953, but he
talked to people who did. Afterwards he learned a great deal.
Nonetheless, Erwin Chargaff accused Crick and Watson of "practising
biochemistry without a licence" and in a sense he was right.
In what sense would that be? Anyone who can bring a new perspective to
a discipline is worth listening to - licensed or unlicensed.
I hope your negative thoughts about mathematicians and physicists is not
founded on the "not one of us" prejudice.
Of course not, but as PTD will tell you in relation to linguistics, if
you want to bring new knowledge to a subject it's a good idea to learn
something about the old knowledge first.
Post by occam
Traditionally biology has been
a suck-it-and-see-then-classify discipline. Evolutionary biology and
genetics have introduced the much needed mathematical tools to give the
discipline a more respected status.
Of course
Post by occam
A lot of it however still lacks a
'model' in the mathematical sense i.e. one capable of predicting
(biological) system behaviours.
Of course, again.
Post by occam
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model. Can you point
to one such model in biology?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The fact
that their structure was correct didn't make any difference, and
Chargaff's reputation as a curmudgeon hasn't suffered.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-04 16:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Actually I'm not sure Crick knew much about biology in 1953, but he
talked to people who did. Afterwards he learned a great deal.
Nonetheless, Erwin Chargaff accused Crick and Watson of "practising
biochemistry without a licence" and in a sense he was right.
In what sense would that be? Anyone who can bring a new perspective to
a discipline is worth listening to - licensed or unlicensed.
I hope your negative thoughts about mathematicians and physicists is not
founded on the "not one of us" prejudice.
Of course not, but as PTD will tell you in relation to linguistics, if
you want to bring new knowledge to a subject it's a good idea to learn
something about the old knowledge first.
Or, less esoterically, Jackson Pollack could do pretty good realistic
drawings and watercolors when he was an art student. (The Guggenheim had
a little show while MoMA had the great retrospective.) The 19th-Century
Museum in Cologne (I forget its name) seems to have specialized in the
work of the Impressionists before they became Impressionists, and they
too made paintings just like all their now-forgotten contemporaries.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Traditionally biology has been
a suck-it-and-see-then-classify discipline. Evolutionary biology and
genetics have introduced the much needed mathematical tools to give the
discipline a more respected status.
Of course
Post by occam
A lot of it however still lacks a
'model' in the mathematical sense i.e. one capable of predicting
(biological) system behaviours.
Of course, again.
Back to the definition of life/entropy? (That wasn't in sci.lang, was it?)
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model. Can you point
to one such model in biology?
It's pretty well established that when two organisms of the same species
procreate, the offspring will very closely resemble the progenitors.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
The fact
that their structure was correct didn't make any difference, and
Chargaff's reputation as a curmudgeon hasn't suffered.
Quinn C
2018-10-09 17:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Actually I'm not sure Crick knew much about biology in 1953, but he
talked to people who did. Afterwards he learned a great deal.
Nonetheless, Erwin Chargaff accused Crick and Watson of "practising
biochemistry without a licence" and in a sense he was right.
In what sense would that be? Anyone who can bring a new perspective to
a discipline is worth listening to - licensed or unlicensed.
I hope your negative thoughts about mathematicians and physicists is not
founded on the "not one of us" prejudice.
Of course not, but as PTD will tell you in relation to linguistics, if
you want to bring new knowledge to a subject it's a good idea to learn
something about the old knowledge first.
Or, less esoterically, Jackson Pollack could do pretty good realistic
drawings and watercolors when he was an art student. (The Guggenheim had
a little show while MoMA had the great retrospective.) The 19th-Century
Museum in Cologne (I forget its name) seems to have specialized in the
work of the Impressionists before they became Impressionists, and they
too made paintings just like all their now-forgotten contemporaries.
I guess that would be the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, or short "the
Wallraf". It's even more famous for its medieval collection, but it has
an important 19th century one as well.

Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
--
... English-speaking people have managed to get along a good many
centuries with the present supply of pronouns; ... It is so old and
venerable an argument ... it's equivalent was used when gas, railways
and steamboats were proposed. -- Findlay (OH) Jeffersonian (1875)
Tony Cooper
2018-10-09 23:48:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
musika
2018-10-10 02:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."

Pablo Picasso.
--
Ray
UK
occam
2018-10-10 09:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.

I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
charles
2018-10-10 09:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
something about the emperor's new clothes?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
occam
2018-10-10 10:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
something about the emperor's new clothes?
Well, I have not seen any naked emperors running around, lately. But I
have heard a lot of pseudo-intellectual claptrap about art to recognise
it for what it is. Claptrap. This brings us neatly back to the theme of
this thread. <graceful bow>
Snidely
2018-10-11 09:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by charles
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
something about the emperor's new clothes?
Well, I have not seen any naked emperors running around, lately. But I
have heard a lot of pseudo-intellectual claptrap about art to recognise
it for what it is. Claptrap. This brings us neatly back to the theme of
this thread. <graceful bow>
Ah, but how many sides can you see at one time?

/dps
--
Trust, but verify.
occam
2018-10-11 10:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by occam
Post by charles
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
something about the emperor's new clothes?
Well, I have not seen any naked emperors running around, lately. But I
have heard a lot of pseudo-intellectual claptrap about art to recognise
it for what it is. Claptrap. This brings us neatly back to the theme of
this thread. <graceful bow>
Ah, but how many sides can you see at one time?
Should I admire the work of an axe murderer just because I can see 'more
sides' of the victim after he has finished his butchery? That is how I
feel about most of Picasso's cubist paintings.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-10 13:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
Remind us never to pay attention to any esthetic judgments that may
emerge from you in the future.

What, exactly, do you mean by "Picasso's style"?
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-10 18:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
Remind us never to pay attention to any esthetic judgments that may
emerge from you in the future.
What, exactly, do you mean by "Picasso's style"?
Guess he means 'all of them',

Jan
Ken Blake
2018-10-10 15:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I think his earliest paintings, which were realistic and which I've
mostly seen in the Picasso museum in Barcelona, were good. I also
think many of those for which he became most famous, his cubist
paintings, were very good.

But when it comes to his later work, I agree with you. He had become
so famous that he could spend just a few minutes dashing something off
and sell it for a lot of money; it was his signature that had the
value. So he became very greedy and produced piles and piles of junk.
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-10 15:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".

It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.

Scroll down for larger picture:

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-10 16:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
Keeping it in a humid place probably isn't good for its value.
Post by Mack A. Damia
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-10 16:33:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:23:22 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
Keeping it in a humid place probably isn't good for its value.
I don't use the shower/bathtub in that bathroom and rarely run hot
water. My other bathroom on the first floor has better water
pressure. Also, this is a fairly dry climate.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
Tak To
2018-10-10 19:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Post by Mack A. Damia
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-10 20:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,

Jan
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-10 21:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
The frame is sealed. I sent photos of the front and the Certificate of
Authentication on the back to a gallery in Chicago.

Authentication

"Societe de Verification de la Nouvelle Gravure Internationale of New
York and Paris certifies and warrants that this is an original etching
signed in the plate by Pablo Picasso. The Societe de Verification de
las Nouvelle Gravure has been created by the Collectors Guild Ltd., to
set and uphold the highest standards for the original lithographs and
etchings. Guild Edition etching embossed Collector’s Guild
Authentication seal."

There is an embossed seal. The gallery wanted to auction the etching
for me. No way.

Just like this one:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1956-nude-pablo-picasso-etching-nu-de-492652000
Ken Blake
2018-10-10 22:04:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
The frame is sealed. I sent photos of the front and the Certificate of
Authentication on the back to a gallery in Chicago.
Authentication
"Societe de Verification de la Nouvelle Gravure Internationale of New
York and Paris certifies and warrants that this is an original etching
signed in the plate by Pablo Picasso.
Being signed in the plate is typical of these very large edition few
seconds works of "art." If Picasso had signed each print in pencil, as
is properly done, it would have taken him longer to do the signing
that he did to create the work.

There are undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general any print signed
in the plate is a large edition and is worth much less than a print
with a proper pencil signature.
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-10 23:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
The frame is sealed. I sent photos of the front and the Certificate of
Authentication on the back to a gallery in Chicago.
Authentication
"Societe de Verification de la Nouvelle Gravure Internationale of New
York and Paris certifies and warrants that this is an original etching
signed in the plate by Pablo Picasso.
Being signed in the plate is typical of these very large edition few
seconds works of "art." If Picasso had signed each print in pencil, as
is properly done, it would have taken him longer to do the signing
that he did to create the work.
There are undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general any print signed
in the plate is a large edition and is worth much less than a print
with a proper pencil signature.
Okay, but the appraiser on Antique Roadshow appears to recognize this,
and he still values it for $1,500.00:

"It's an etching by Picasso. You have Picasso's signature, which is
actually an etched signature in the plate, as well as the date here,
1956. All that's in reverse because he would have written that
correctly, free-hand, on the etching plate, and then it would print in
reverse."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/season/17/rapid-city-sd/appraisals/picasso-etching-ca-1956--201203T05/

I have never seen the etching appraised for more than this.
Ken Blake
2018-10-11 00:56:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:05:00 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
The frame is sealed. I sent photos of the front and the Certificate of
Authentication on the back to a gallery in Chicago.
Authentication
"Societe de Verification de la Nouvelle Gravure Internationale of New
York and Paris certifies and warrants that this is an original etching
signed in the plate by Pablo Picasso.
Being signed in the plate is typical of these very large edition few
seconds works of "art." If Picasso had signed each print in pencil, as
is properly done, it would have taken him longer to do the signing
that he did to create the work.
There are undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general any print signed
in the plate is a large edition and is worth much less than a print
with a proper pencil signature.
Okay, but the appraiser on Antique Roadshow appears to recognize this,
That's a low amount for a Picasso. And that doesn't mean it can be
sold for that amount.
Post by Mack A. Damia
"It's an etching by Picasso. You have Picasso's signature, which is
actually an etched signature in the plate, as well as the date here,
1956. All that's in reverse because he would have written that
correctly, free-hand, on the etching plate, and then it would print in
reverse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/season/17/rapid-city-sd/appraisals/picasso-etching-ca-1956--201203T05/
I have never seen the etching appraised for more than this.
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-11 01:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:05:00 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
The frame is sealed. I sent photos of the front and the Certificate of
Authentication on the back to a gallery in Chicago.
Authentication
"Societe de Verification de la Nouvelle Gravure Internationale of New
York and Paris certifies and warrants that this is an original etching
signed in the plate by Pablo Picasso.
Being signed in the plate is typical of these very large edition few
seconds works of "art." If Picasso had signed each print in pencil, as
is properly done, it would have taken him longer to do the signing
that he did to create the work.
There are undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general any print signed
in the plate is a large edition and is worth much less than a print
with a proper pencil signature.
Okay, but the appraiser on Antique Roadshow appears to recognize this,
That's a low amount for a Picasso. And that doesn't mean it can be
sold for that amount.
I don't know how many prints were made from the original plate. Is it
in the hundreds? Thousands? I have no idea, but while searching, I
have found quite a few for sale or that have been sold.

But that's it. I think the plate may have been destroyed at some
point, so that no more could be printed.

This editor says there are many in total from all of Picasso's
etchings:

"Picasso also excelled in printmaking, producing over 2,400 etchings,
lithographs, and linocuts over the course of his career—many of which
are considerably more affordable, though works containing the artist’s
signature often cost twice as much as those without. There may be as
many as 180,000 Picasso prints in circulation, but each individual one
can be quite rare, especially as many continue to leave the market to
enter museum collections."

https://www.artsy.net/article/the-art-genome-project-what-picasso-s-prints-reveal-about-the-world-s-most-famous-artist
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Mack A. Damia
"It's an etching by Picasso. You have Picasso's signature, which is
actually an etched signature in the plate, as well as the date here,
1956. All that's in reverse because he would have written that
correctly, free-hand, on the etching plate, and then it would print in
reverse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/season/17/rapid-city-sd/appraisals/picasso-etching-ca-1956--201203T05/
I have never seen the etching appraised for more than this.
Lewis
2018-10-11 05:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:05:00 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:02:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
The frame is sealed. I sent photos of the front and the Certificate of
Authentication on the back to a gallery in Chicago.
Authentication
"Societe de Verification de la Nouvelle Gravure Internationale of New
York and Paris certifies and warrants that this is an original etching
signed in the plate by Pablo Picasso.
Being signed in the plate is typical of these very large edition few
seconds works of "art." If Picasso had signed each print in pencil, as
is properly done, it would have taken him longer to do the signing
that he did to create the work.
There are undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general any print signed
in the plate is a large edition and is worth much less than a print
with a proper pencil signature.
Okay, but the appraiser on Antique Roadshow appears to recognize this,
That's a low amount for a Picasso. And that doesn't mean it can be
sold for that amount.
That;'s not a low amount for a Picasso lithograph. <y step mother had a
Picasso lithograph that was valued, when she died, at about $1000 (2006)

I've seen lithographs of Picasso for sale for much more, it all depends
on the specific work.
--
"It's unacceptable to think" - George W Bush 15/Sep/2006
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-11 06:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tak To
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
Authenticated for what? A print pulled and signed by Picasso,
a print pulled under his supervision and signed by him, a
print merely signed by him, and a print not signed by him
are very different things; and all four varieties can be
produced from a single "run". Not to mention whether the
it was a limited printing, many were actually pulled, whether
there is a serial number, etc.
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso?
It is known that Salvador Dali
left a large amount of signed blank paper,
Jan
I think it was Miró who wrote "This is not by me" on a drawing
attributed to him, and signed it, thereby greatly increasing its sale
value.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-10-11 10:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso? It is known that
Salvador Dali left a large amount of signed blank paper,
I think it was Miró who wrote "This is not by me" on a drawing
attributed to him, and signed it, thereby greatly increasing its sale
value.
After my son got his second violin (it was a gift) we discovered that by
peering into the interior we could see "Stradivarius facit" written on
the inside. That sounded as if it could be a hoax.

At some later stage I heard that violin makers sometimes reuse parts
from old broken violins. So it's likely that the back of his violin was
indeed a genuine Stradivarius, but the rest of the violin was a lot newer.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-11 11:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or #5, a print on paper signed by Picasso? It is known that
Salvador Dali left a large amount of signed blank paper,
I think it was Miró who wrote "This is not by me" on a drawing
attributed to him, and signed it, thereby greatly increasing its sale
value.
After my son got his second violin (it was a gift) we discovered that by
peering into the interior we could see "Stradivarius facit" written on
the inside. That sounded as if it could be a hoax.
At some later stage I heard that violin makers sometimes reuse parts
from old broken violins. So it's likely that the back of his violin was
indeed a genuine Stradivarius, but the rest of the violin was a lot newer.
You should have an expert look at it.
Even a genuine Strad back is worth a lot of money,

Jan
Ken Blake
2018-10-10 20:25:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:19:53 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
It's an etching, not a lithograph, and probably from a very large
edition. Looks like one of those things he dashed off in a few
seconds.
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-10 21:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:19:53 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
It's an etching, not a lithograph, and probably from a very large
edition. Looks like one of those things he dashed off in a few
seconds.
I am not absolutely certain about "lithograph" versus etching". I
thought I had read an explanation about the Picasso piece; it was
featured on "Antiques Roadshow" a few years ago, and the art expert
explained the process. It was a program from 2012 where the expert
appraised an etching of Picasso's "Nu De Dos". The owner had paid
about $130.00 for it, and he appraised it at $1,500.00

Is it that plates are made from the original etching, and then others
are lithographed from the plate? Not certain about that, but I think
so.

The one I have is identical to this one that sold for $750.00. No
date on the sale, though. The market sets the value.

https://www.chairish.com/product/276621/picasso-vintage-1956-nu-de-dos-reverse-etching
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-10 21:39:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:23:58 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:19:53 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
It's an etching, not a lithograph, and probably from a very large
edition. Looks like one of those things he dashed off in a few
seconds.
I am not absolutely certain about "lithograph" versus etching". I
thought I had read an explanation about the Picasso piece; it was
featured on "Antiques Roadshow" a few years ago, and the art expert
explained the process. It was a program from 2012 where the expert
appraised an etching of Picasso's "Nu De Dos". The owner had paid
about $130.00 for it, and he appraised it at $1,500.00
Is it that plates are made from the original etching, and then others
are lithographed from the plate? Not certain about that, but I think
so.
The one I have is identical to this one that sold for $750.00. No
date on the sale, though. The market sets the value.
https://www.chairish.com/product/276621/picasso-vintage-1956-nu-de-dos-reverse-etching
Found it. You are correct. It is an etching.

GUEST:
I brought in a line etching by Picasso. I'm not sure exactly whether
this is a restrike after he died. I've had it since the '70s. I
acquired it from a gallery in Baltimore. I spent, I think, if I
remember right, somewhere around $135, $125, $135.

APPRAISER:
It's an etching by Picasso. You have Picasso's signature, which is
actually an etched signature in the plate, as well as the date here,
1956. All that's in reverse because he would have written that
correctly, free-hand, on the etching plate, and then it would print in
reverse. It's classic 1950s Picasso look. Now, the big question here
is when was this printed, what's the edition? Picasso would have
printed from this plate, or his printers would have printed this from
this plate, in 1956 in Paris. And he would have hand-signed them and
numbered them. Typically, his editions were between 50 and 150. This
Picasso is an etching that was published by the Collector's Guild. And
the Collector's Guild was an outfit that was in operation in America
in the 1960s, primarily. And they were sort of like a
book-of-the-month club. After the artist had used the plates and made
their edition, the Collector's Guild in America would buy the plate
and the rights to print from that plate.

GUEST:
Sure.

APPRAISER:
And they would basically make as many impressions as they could sell.
And this is something that we see quite a bit of on Antiques Roadshow.
But, that being said, they are by prominent artists, and they are from
the original plates. So therefore, this is a genuine original Picasso
etching. It's just not done by Picasso anymore. It's sort of out of
his hands, if you will. It would be safe to say that you have
something in the retail neighborhood of around $1,500.

GUEST:
Really?

APPRAISER:
So it's definitely appreciated.

GUEST:
Well, I guess it has, hasn't it?

2012 show and appraisal:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/season/17/rapid-city-sd/appraisals/picasso-etching-ca-1956--201203T05/
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-10 21:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:19:53 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-d
os-etching-1956
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
It's an etching, not a lithograph, and probably from a very large
edition. Looks like one of those things he dashed off in a few
seconds.
I am not absolutely certain about "lithograph" versus etching". I
thought I had read an explanation about the Picasso piece; it was
featured on "Antiques Roadshow" a few years ago, and the art expert
explained the process. It was a program from 2012 where the expert
appraised an etching of Picasso's "Nu De Dos". The owner had paid
about $130.00 for it, and he appraised it at $1,500.00
Is it that plates are made from the original etching, and then others
are lithographed from the plate? Not certain about that, but I think
so.
The one I have is identical to this one that sold for $750.00. No
date on the sale, though. The market sets the value.
https://www.chairish.com/product/276621/picasso-vintage-1956-nu-de-dos-reverse
-etching

Lithography doesn't come into it.
A new metal plate is made, using standard printed circuit techniques,
which is then printed using a standard press for etchings.
So it lies -in- the paper, just like the original.
It takes an expert to see the differences,
especially so if old paper has been used.

At the 'Rembrandthuis', Amsterdam
they make it easy by giving the replicas they sell
a slightly different size, (I've been told)

Jan
Ken Blake
2018-10-10 22:09:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:23:58 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:19:53 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-dos-etching-1956
It's an etching, not a lithograph, and probably from a very large
edition. Looks like one of those things he dashed off in a few
seconds.
I am not absolutely certain about "lithograph" versus etching".
They are very different and hard to confuse once you learn the
difference. I could explain the difference (I've done both myself and
I've given several lectures on woodcuts, etchings, engravings,
drypoints, lithographs, and serigraphs) but it would take me a while
and be a long post. It would be better for you to go a museum or
gallery and observe the difference yourself. Seeing the difference is
much better than reading about it.
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-11 09:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:23:58 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:19:53 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I may have mentioned years ago that I bought this authentic Picasso
lithograph for $3.55 at a junk shop in the area about ten years ago.
It is hanging in my bathroom. "Nu De Dos".
It has been authenticated and is exactly like this one sold on the
auction block and pictured here. Starting bid was $1,000.00. Don't
know what it sold for.
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/9675834_30f-pablo-picasso-femme-nu-de-
dos-etching-1956
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ken Blake
It's an etching, not a lithograph, and probably from a very large
edition. Looks like one of those things he dashed off in a few
seconds.
I am not absolutely certain about "lithograph" versus etching".
They are very different and hard to confuse once you learn the
difference. I could explain the difference (I've done both myself and
I've given several lectures on woodcuts, etchings, engravings,
drypoints, lithographs, and serigraphs) but it would take me a while
and be a long post. It would be better for you to go a museum or
gallery and observe the difference yourself. Seeing the difference is
much better than reading about it.
You can do it on-line.
Escher for example has done very few etchings, lots of woodcuts,
but most of his best known work is lithographs,

Jan
David Kleinecke
2018-10-10 19:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
If my child painted like Picasso, I'd take him to a psychiatrist for an
evaluation straight away. 'Like a child' is not how I'd describe
Picasso's paintings. 'Like a box full of welder's off-cuts' is closer to
the reality.
I know we have all learned to accept that fawning over Picasso's style
is the cultured thing to do. However, his later paintings jar. They have
the aesthetics of a barbed-wire fence.
I don't admire Picasso's later style either but I think
he was misleading us when he said "child" - IMO he meant
"savage. He was after telling stylizations. I think he
never succeeded and eventually have up even trying.
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-10 20:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint
like a child."
Pablo Picasso.
"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once
he grows up." (Picasso)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-10 03:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
That's surprising. How could he paint realistic melting watches, or a
floating Crucifixion, if he couldn't paint realistic watches or bodies?
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-10 20:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
Surealism is realism too,

Jan
occam
2018-10-10 21:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
Surealism is realism too,
No, actually it is beyond realism. The hint is in the 'sur' bit.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 10:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
Surealism is realism too,
Giraffe!
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-11 11:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:22:31 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Those visiting the Salvador Dali Museum in St Petersburg FL are often
surprised that he was an accomplished realistic painter.
Surealism is realism too,
Giraffe!
Tigers!

Jan
Tak To
2018-10-10 20:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
[...]
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Do you count his works in the Pink or Blue Periods as
realistic? Hardly any art book on modern painting would not
a sample from these times.

Btw, in my college years it was very popular in the US to
decorate one's dorm room (or other lodging for students)
with posters of famous paintings. /The Old Guitarist/
was a common sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Guitarist
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Quinn C
2018-10-10 21:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
[...]
Picasso makes a good example, too. I wasn't aware of his early,
realistic work before visiting Barcelona.
Do you count his works in the Pink or Blue Periods as
realistic? Hardly any art book on modern painting would not
a sample from these times.
Btw, in my college years it was very popular in the US to
decorate one's dorm room (or other lodging for students)
with posters of famous paintings. /The Old Guitarist/
was a common sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Guitarist
Child with Dove was more common in my surroundings.
<https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/child-with-dove-1901>

Anyway, that's not as realistic as the ones I was referring to. Some
early works evoke the old masters, like
<https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/science-and-charity-1897>

Child with Dove reminds me of Chagall. Picasso also tried many other
styles in the early period.
--
XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most
of the unreadability of binary formats.
Oren Tirosh, comp.lang.python
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-05 08:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
[ … ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years. He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.

Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years? But there it is.

In passing it answered a question that I had often wondered about, as
to why Dan Koshland, my mentor at Berkeley, was never awarded the Nobel
Prize in Physiology or Medicine, or for Chemistry, despite being far
better known than many of the instantly forgettable people* who have
received one or other since the 1950s. It wasn't because he didn't need
the money (he was one of the wealthiest people in the world), but,
probably, for the same reason as Hawking. He changed the way people
think, in important respects, but he never made an important testable
prediction that has been tested and confirmed. Like Hawking, he allowed
us to understand things that weren't understood before, but that is not
a Nobel criterion.

*We remember Tim Hunt, but more from an unfortunate remark he made in
Korea than for the work that led to the prize. I remember Paul Nurse
(same year) too, but mainly because he graduated from Birmingham a year
too early for me to be able to claim I'd taught a Nobel Prizewinner.
Anyway, I'm being unfair: there are lots of people on the lists whose
work I remember, but there are some whose names mean nothing to me (all
those for 2010, for example (I remember Mario Vargas Llosa, of course,
but his wasn't a science prize)).
--
athel
Arindam Banerjee
2018-10-05 08:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
[ … ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years. He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.
The way Hawking becomes great, is first by writing bad books pulling down Newton and trying to ridicule Hinduism - thus satisfying the fundie bigots - and then after death snucking up near to the great Sir Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey. I was relieved to find, in my brief time there, two Asian boys asking where to find Newton's grave.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years? But there it is.
In passing it answered a question that I had often wondered about, as
to why Dan Koshland, my mentor at Berkeley, was never awarded the Nobel
Prize in Physiology or Medicine, or for Chemistry, despite being far
better known than many of the instantly forgettable people* who have
received one or other since the 1950s. It wasn't because he didn't need
the money (he was one of the wealthiest people in the world), but,
probably, for the same reason as Hawking. He changed the way people
think, in important respects, but he never made an important testable
prediction that has been tested and confirmed. Like Hawking, he allowed
us to understand things that weren't understood before, but that is not
a Nobel criterion.
*We remember Tim Hunt, but more from an unfortunate remark he made in
Korea than for the work that led to the prize. I remember Paul Nurse
(same year) too, but mainly because he graduated from Birmingham a year
too early for me to be able to claim I'd taught a Nobel Prizewinner.
Anyway, I'm being unfair: there are lots of people on the lists whose
work I remember, but there are some whose names mean nothing to me (all
those for 2010, for example (I remember Mario Vargas Llosa, of course,
but his wasn't a science prize)).
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-05 09:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
[ - ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years.
Rather obvious: Hawking never did anything Nobel-worthy.
What he did was providing -theoretical- solutions
to -theoretical- problems.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.
Nobel didn't want to give the prize for tested theories,
or even for experiments doing the testing.
His criterion was 'greatest benefit to humanity'.
(and that in the last 12 months)
The Swedish Academy of Sciences has badly deviated from his wishes.
For excuse: his will was not very clear, and quite impractical.
Nobel also wanted his prize to be a stimulus,
to allow a good scientist to continue doing great work
with without having financial worries to distract him.
He certainly did not want it to be a 'lifetime achievement' award.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years? But there it is.
He contributed some things to the *theory* of general relativity.
This year's Nobel for physics (laser tweezers)
is much more in line with what Nobel wanted.

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-05 12:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
[ - ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years.
Rather obvious: Hawking never did anything Nobel-worthy.
What he did was providing -theoretical- solutions
to -theoretical- problems.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.
Nobel didn't want to give the prize for tested theories,
or even for experiments doing the testing.
His criterion was 'greatest benefit to humanity'.
(and that in the last 12 months)
The Swedish Academy of Sciences has badly deviated from his wishes.
For excuse: his will was not very clear, and quite impractical.
Nobel also wanted his prize to be a stimulus,
to allow a good scientist to continue doing great work
with without having financial worries to distract him.
He certainly did not want it to be a 'lifetime achievement' award.
All true, but, as you say, Nobel's intentions were totally unrealistic.
In addition to what you say, he wanted to reward _young_ scientists.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years? But there it is.
He contributed some things to the *theory* of general relativity.
This year's Nobel for physics (laser tweezers)
is much more in line with what Nobel wanted.
Jan
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-05 14:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
[ - ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years.
Rather obvious: Hawking never did anything Nobel-worthy.
What he did was providing -theoretical- solutions
to -theoretical- problems.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.
Nobel didn't want to give the prize for tested theories,
or even for experiments doing the testing.
His criterion was 'greatest benefit to humanity'.
(and that in the last 12 months)
The Swedish Academy of Sciences has badly deviated from his wishes.
For excuse: his will was not very clear, and quite impractical.
Nobel also wanted his prize to be a stimulus,
to allow a good scientist to continue doing great work
with without having financial worries to distract him.
He certainly did not want it to be a 'lifetime achievement' award.
All true, but, as you say, Nobel's intentions were totally unrealistic.
In addition to what you say, he wanted to reward _young_ scientists.
Yes, but not exclusively so, iirc.
Nobel definitely wanted individuals with the potential
for further great work.
Perhaps a full professor who could use the award
to be liberated from teaching and administrative duties
would have met his approval as well.

He might have approved of the MacArthur Fellowships Foundation.
(apart from the American provincialism of it,
for Nobel was very much an internationalist)

Ironically, is some of the cases where the Nobel committe
came closer to Nobel's wishes the results have been rather disastrous.
(Josephson, and Kary Mullis)
They certainly did original things afterwards,
but not along lines that Nobel would have approved of,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2018-10-10 11:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
[ - ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years.
Rather obvious: Hawking never did anything Nobel-worthy.
What he did was providing -theoretical- solutions
to -theoretical- problems.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.
Nobel didn't want to give the prize for tested theories,
or even for experiments doing the testing.
His criterion was 'greatest benefit to humanity'.
(and that in the last 12 months)
The Swedish Academy of Sciences has badly deviated from his wishes.
For excuse: his will was not very clear, and quite impractical.
Nobel also wanted his prize to be a stimulus,
to allow a good scientist to continue doing great work
with without having financial worries to distract him.
He certainly did not want it to be a 'lifetime achievement' award.
All true, but, as you say, Nobel's intentions were totally unrealistic.
In addition to what you say, he wanted to reward _young_ scientists.
Yes, but not exclusively so, iirc.
Nobel definitely wanted individuals with the potential
for further great work.
Perhaps a full professor who could use the award
to be liberated from teaching and administrative duties
would have met his approval as well.
He might have approved of the MacArthur Fellowships Foundation.
(apart from the American provincialism of it,
for Nobel was very much an internationalist)
Ironically, is some of the cases where the Nobel committe
came closer to Nobel's wishes the results have been rather disastrous.
(Josephson, and Kary Mullis)
They certainly did original things afterwards,
but not along lines that Nobel would have approved of,
Jan
Nobel made his money from dynamite. A section of the population disapproved of this invention as it was dangerous, and damaging for the environment. So Nobel started giving out the hefty prizes after his name to give it a better flavour. Plain bribery and corruption.

He may have had good intentions; but the whole project has been hijacked for Eurocentricity - those who serve the biases and the perceived interests of the Western world most diligently, are identified and rewarded. NO scope here for an Asian pagan like me, so what if I am the da Vinci of our time.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-10 13:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
[ - ]
Physics works this way. The theoretician has a model, makes a
prediction, and observations prove or disproves the model.
I was reminded of this claim that physicists make when I went to a
lecture yesterday evening about Stephen Hawking. The lecturer,
Jean-Pierre Luminet, an expert of black holes himself, and a friend of
Hawking's), raised the question of why Hawking had never received a
Nobel Prize, despite being, possibly, the most important physicist of
the past 30 years.
Rather obvious: Hawking never did anything Nobel-worthy.
What he did was providing -theoretical- solutions
to -theoretical- problems.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
He said that it agreed with the Nobel criteria, as
Hawking never made a testable prediction that had been confirmed by
experiment. He did make a testable prediction (that evaporating black
holes would emit gamma rays), but it hasn't been confirmed by
experiment.
Nobel didn't want to give the prize for tested theories,
or even for experiments doing the testing.
His criterion was 'greatest benefit to humanity'.
(and that in the last 12 months)
The Swedish Academy of Sciences has badly deviated from his wishes.
For excuse: his will was not very clear, and quite impractical.
Nobel also wanted his prize to be a stimulus,
to allow a good scientist to continue doing great work
with without having financial worries to distract him.
He certainly did not want it to be a 'lifetime achievement' award.
All true, but, as you say, Nobel's intentions were totally unrealistic.
In addition to what you say, he wanted to reward _young_ scientists.
Yes, but not exclusively so, iirc.
Nobel definitely wanted individuals with the potential
for further great work.
Perhaps a full professor who could use the award
to be liberated from teaching and administrative duties
would have met his approval as well.
He might have approved of the MacArthur Fellowships Foundation.
(apart from the American provincialism of it,
for Nobel was very much an internationalist)
Ironically, is some of the cases where the Nobel committe
came closer to Nobel's wishes the results have been rather disastrous.
(Josephson, and Kary Mullis)
They certainly did original things afterwards,
but not along lines that Nobel would have approved of,
Jan
Nobel made his money from dynamite. A section of the population disapproved of this invention as it was dangerous, and damaging for the environment. So Nobel started giving out the hefty prizes after his name to give it a better flavour. Plain bribery and corruption.
He may have had good intentions; but the whole project has been hijacked for Eurocentricity - those who serve the biases and the perceived interests of the Western world most diligently, are identified and rewarded. NO scope here for an Asian pagan like me, so what if I am the da Vinci of our time.
Do they not have mental health services in your part of the world?

For the record Nobel Laureates represent 74 different countries to date.
India has had 10 Laureates, Pakistan 2 and Bangladesh 1.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-10 13:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Nobel made his money from dynamite. A section of the population disapproved of this invention as it was dangerous, and damaging for the environment. So Nobel started giving out the hefty prizes after his name to give it a better flavour. Plain bribery and corruption.
After his death, actually.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Arindam Banerjee
He may have had good intentions; but the whole project has been hijacked for Eurocentricity - those who serve the biases and the perceived interests of the Western world most diligently, are identified and rewarded. NO scope here for an Asian pagan like me, so what if I am the da Vinci of our time.
One of the first Literature prizes was for Rabindranath Tagore. Gandhi
would have received the Peace prize had he not been assassinated earlier
that year, by one of yours.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Do they not have mental health services in your part of the world?
For the record Nobel Laureates represent 74 different countries to date.
India has had 10 Laureates, Pakistan 2 and Bangladesh 1.
Two countries were added this year, thanks to the Nobel Prize for Peace:
Syria (a Yazidi woman) and Congo [ex-Zaire], also an activist for the
protection of women.
Peter Moylan
2018-10-11 04:18:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 12:30:44 UTC+1, Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Nobel made his money from dynamite. A section of the population
disapproved of this invention as it was dangerous, and damaging for
the environment. So Nobel started giving out the hefty prizes after
his name to give it a better flavour. Plain bribery and
corruption.
He may have had good intentions; but the whole project has been
hijacked for Eurocentricity - those who serve the biases and the
perceived interests of the Western world most diligently, are
identified and rewarded. NO scope here for an Asian pagan like me,
so what if I am the da Vinci of our time.
Do they not have mental health services in your part of the world?
It wouldn't help. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a
Nobel Prize awarded to a crackpot. That's pretty clear evidence of
discrimination.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-11 09:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 12:30:44 UTC+1, Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Nobel made his money from dynamite. A section of the population
disapproved of this invention as it was dangerous, and damaging for
the environment. So Nobel started giving out the hefty prizes after
his name to give it a better flavour. Plain bribery and
corruption.
He may have had good intentions; but the whole project has been
hijacked for Eurocentricity - those who serve the biases and the
perceived interests of the Western world most diligently, are
identified and rewarded. NO scope here for an Asian pagan like me,
so what if I am the da Vinci of our time.
Do they not have mental health services in your part of the world?
It wouldn't help. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a
Nobel Prize awarded to a crackpot. That's pretty clear evidence of
discrimination.
The Nobel prize (medicine) for lobotomy (1949) comes close.
You might prefer to call the recipient a quack instead,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-11 09:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 12:30:44 UTC+1, Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Nobel made his money from dynamite. A section of the population
disapproved of this invention as it was dangerous, and damaging for
the environment. So Nobel started giving out the hefty prizes after
his name to give it a better flavour. Plain bribery and
corruption.
He may have had good intentions; but the whole project has been
hijacked for Eurocentricity - those who serve the biases and the
perceived interests of the Western world most diligently, are
identified and rewarded. NO scope here for an Asian pagan like me,
so what if I am the da Vinci
He means Leonardo (though he isn't). Would he like to be known as the
of Melbourne of his time?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Arindam Banerjee
of our time.
Do they not have mental health services in your part of the world?
It wouldn't help. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a
Nobel Prize awarded to a crackpot. That's pretty clear evidence of
discrimination.
The Nobel prize (medicine) for lobotomy (1949) comes close.
You might prefer to call the recipient a quack instead,
Probably not a crackpot, though, as I expect he made plenty of money
from it. People like Arindam don't.
--
athel
Arindam Banerjee
2018-10-11 10:12:34 UTC
Permalink
I am more fortunate than Leonardo and Isaac, if not William. Least of such fortune is not having to care for the opinions of the eurocentric racist bigots/hypocrites.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 10:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I am more fortunate than Leonardo and Isaac, if not William. Least of such fortune is not having to care for the opinions of the eurocentric racist bigots/hypocrites.
Wow! You just whooshed yourself! Now that's impressive!
Peter Moylan
2018-10-11 10:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
The Nobel prize (medicine) for lobotomy (1949) comes close.
You might prefer to call the recipient a quack instead,
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-11 11:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
The Nobel prize (medicine) for lobotomy (1949) comes close.
You might prefer to call the recipient a quack instead,
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
They say you will be very happy, afterwards,
even if unable to express your gratitude,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2018-10-11 11:43:04 UTC
Permalink
The highest honours are for the medos but as there are so many of them Moylan has missed out.
Mark Brader
2018-10-05 10:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years?
I am not qualified to judge that, and I don't imagine many people in
this newsgroup are. I only know he has that reputation in the popular
media.

On the same episode of "America Says" that I just mentioned in a new
thread, another one of the questions was [again, this is from memory,
and the wording may not be exact]:

THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW OF IS ___________

and the three most popular answers among the people surveyed were:

ALBERT EINSTEIN
BILL GATES
STEPHEN HAWKING

Definitely no comment.
--
Mark Brader | And the customary practice seems to be "FIRST,
Toronto | let the cat out of the bag; THEN inform you
***@vex.net | that there's a cat and a bag." --Daniel P.B. Smith

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
2018-10-05 11:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
On the same episode of "America Says" that I just mentioned in a new
thread, another one of the questions was [again, this is from memory,
THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW OF IS ___________
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BILL GATES
STEPHEN HAWKING
Definitely no comment.
"If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?"
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2018-10-05 18:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
On the same episode of "America Says" that I just mentioned in a new
thread, another one of the questions was [again, this is from memory,
THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW OF IS ___________
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BILL GATES
STEPHEN HAWKING
Definitely no comment.
"If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?"
Hmmm, I would have spoilt that curve by answering Leibniz.

Maybe.
--
Commander: "Seems odd you'd name your ship after a battle you were on
the wrong side of."

Mal: "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the
wrong one."
Tony Cooper
2018-10-05 14:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years?
I am not qualified to judge that, and I don't imagine many people in
this newsgroup are. I only know he has that reputation in the popular
media.
On the same episode of "America Says" that I just mentioned in a new
thread, another one of the questions was [again, this is from memory,
THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW OF IS ___________
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BILL GATES
STEPHEN HAWKING
Definitely no comment.
I would have picked someone that I actually know. I know *of*
Einstein, Gates, and Hawking, but don't know any of them.

It would be very difficult for me to settle on one person - that I
actually know - as the smartest. Most of the people who come to mind
are very smart in certain areas, but not what I think is smart in
other areas.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lewis
2018-10-05 18:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years?
I am not qualified to judge that, and I don't imagine many people in
this newsgroup are. I only know he has that reputation in the popular
media.
On the same episode of "America Says" that I just mentioned in a new
thread, another one of the questions was [again, this is from memory,
THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW OF IS ___________
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BILL GATES
STEPHEN HAWKING
Definitely no comment.
I would have picked someone that I actually know. I know *of*
Einstein, Gates, and Hawking, but don't know any of them.
And the question asks "that you know of" so....
--
A TRAINED APE COULD NOT TEACH GYM Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF15
occam
2018-10-05 15:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Personally I think that's a silly criterion -- would you or anyone else
seriously maintain that Hawking was not a great physicist, with a much
bigger contribution to physics than many who have received the Physics
prize in the past 30 years?
I am not qualified to judge that, and I don't imagine many people in
this newsgroup are. I only know he has that reputation in the popular
media.
On the same episode of "America Says" that I just mentioned in a new
thread, another one of the questions was [again, this is from memory,
THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW OF IS ___________
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BILL GATES
STEPHEN HAWKING
Definitely no comment.
At least Donald Trump's name is not there. I'm not sure what "America
Says" is, but if it elicits answers from the great American public, I'm
sure the name will appear there soon.
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-04 20:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
You mean people like Erwin Schroedinger, or Francis Crick,
or perhaps Manfred Eigen?
No. All of those learned something about biology first. Richard Feynman
likewise. I think of them as good guys.
Actually I'm not sure Crick knew much about biology in 1953, but he
talked to people who did. Afterwards he learned a great deal.
Nonetheless, Erwin Chargaff accused Crick and Watson of "practising
biochemistry without a licence" and in a sense he was right. The fact
that their structure was correct didn't make any difference, and
Chargaff's reputation as a curmudgeon hasn't suffered.
Just a fool.
Science profits greatly from 'practioneers without a licence',
that is, 'unqualified' people moving into an unrelated field.
(like John Dalton into chemistry for example)
In particular, biologists would still be stamp collecting
if a lot of physicists hadn't barged in.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
The question did not need an answer.
I think you are on very dangerous ground here.
The people you despise might turn out to know more about evolution
than you would give them credit for.
And they will probably reply in kind.
They won't, because I'm not planning to publish my thoughts, and unless
they follow this news group and can guess that I'm referring to them
they won't ever know.
One correction, though, my original post should have had "some" before
"physicists".
No doubt much better,

Jan
occam
2018-10-04 10:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach evolutionary
biologists and people interested in the nature of life about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually knowing
anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger", "claptrap",
"pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your grandmother to
suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had last night
doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be used in a
report, so "bollocks" won't do!
'bunkum' 'codswallop' 'hogwash' 'rhubarb' 'tripe' 'folderol'

(I'm tempted to invoke Rey Aman, however his specialisation precludes
any printable words.)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 10:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach evolutionary
biologists and people interested in the nature of life about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually knowing
anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger", "claptrap",
"pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your grandmother to
suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had last night
doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be used in a
report, so "bollocks" won't do!
'bunkum' 'codswallop' 'hogwash' 'rhubarb' 'tripe' 'folderol'
(I'm tempted to invoke Rey Aman, however his specialisation precludes
any printable words.)
Well yes. If "bollocks" is unusable I'm sure that Rey's suggestions
might be as well.
--
athel
pensive hamster
2018-10-04 11:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves.
How can anyone over the age of about ten not know anything about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life? I may not know much
about evolutionary biology, but I have been to the University of Life.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
"Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions?
How about "improvising", "waffling" or "making it up as you go along"?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-04 11:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
Grandiloquent inexactitude.
bert
2018-10-04 11:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
An excellent, although little-understood, term for such
behaviour is "ultracrepidation". The story of its origin,
from an earlier edition of Chambers' dictionary, is:

The painter Apelles was in an art gallery one day, where
one of his paintings was on display. A cobbler came in
with his family, and looking at the painting, criticised
the way in which one character's sandal was depicted.
Apelles, to his companions' surprise, remained silent.
But when the cobbler went on to criticise the depiction
of the leg, Apelles stepped forward and remonstrated with
him, saying "Ne sutor ultra crepidam judicaret" (let not
the cobbler judge beyond the sandal).

I suppose that "ultracrepidate" must have been coined
at a time when almost all literate people had absorbed
this story during their Latin-dominated schooldays, and
would instantly recognise and understand the allusion.
--
Jerry Friedman
2018-10-04 14:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by bert
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
An excellent, although little-understood, term for such
behaviour is "ultracrepidation".
...

That has to be the best.

But maybe when Athel read /Gaudy Night/ recently, he noticed this passage:

"He's writing a paper that contradicts all old Lambard's conclusions,
and I'm helping by toning down his adjectives and putting in deprecatory
footnotes. I mean, Lambard may be a perverse old idiot, but it's more
dignified not to say so in so many words. A bland and deadly courtesy
is more devastating, don't you think?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 14:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by bert
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
An excellent, although little-understood, term for such
behaviour is "ultracrepidation".
...
That has to be the best.
"He's writing a paper that contradicts all old Lambard's conclusions,
and I'm helping by toning down his adjectives and putting in
deprecatory footnotes. I mean, Lambard may be a perverse old idiot,
but it's more dignified not to say so in so many words. A bland and
deadly courtesy is more devastating, don't you think?"
Yes! A bland and deadly courtesy is what I usually aim for (not always
on this news group, however).
--
athel
Mike_Duffy
2018-10-04 15:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes! A bland and deadly courtesy
'Unsubstantiated'
bill van
2018-10-05 03:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike_Duffy
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes! A bland and deadly courtesy
'Unsubstantiated'
"Not dependable."

bill
Harrison Hill
2018-10-04 18:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by bert
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
An excellent, although little-understood, term for such
behaviour is "ultracrepidation".
...
That has to be the best.
"He's writing a paper that contradicts all old Lambard's conclusions,
and I'm helping by toning down his adjectives and putting in
deprecatory footnotes. I mean, Lambard may be a perverse old idiot,
but it's more dignified not to say so in so many words. A bland and
deadly courtesy is more devastating, don't you think?"
Yes! A bland and deadly courtesy is what I usually aim for (not always
on this news group, however).
An icy politeness then - which is just right. Look down your nose at
your opponent without giving him any cause for disagreement.
Jerry Friedman
2018-10-04 16:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by bert
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
An excellent, although little-understood, term for such
behaviour is "ultracrepidation".
...
That has to be the best.
...

And I see that practitioners are called ultracrepidasts.

Second choice: confabulation, which can mean saying plausible
things without awareness that they're not true, as some mentally ill
people do. (I don't want to mention any names.)

Third choice: sciolism.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff
2018-10-04 19:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by bert
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
An excellent, although little-understood, term for such
behaviour is "ultracrepidation".
...
That has to be the best.
...
And I see that practitioners are called ultracrepidasts.
Second choice: confabulation, which can mean saying plausible
things without awareness that they're not true, as some mentally ill
people do. (I don't want to mention any names.)
Third choice: sciolism.
That one is spot-on for meaning, though I'll hazard a guess that it
wasn't the self-same word Athel thought of last night.
--
Paul
Cheryl
2018-10-04 11:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach evolutionary
biologists and people interested in the nature of life about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually knowing
anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger", "claptrap",
"pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your grandmother to
suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had last night
doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be used in a
report, so "bollocks" won't do!
I suppose "uninformed" might be too polite, although it could be
combined with something else - Professor Smith's uninformed comments
reveal that he (or she or...) isn't familiar with Professor Jones'
admirable introductory text on the subject "On Evolutionary Biology for
High School Students".
--
Cheryl
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-04 12:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach evolutionary
biologists and people interested in the nature of life about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually knowing
anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger", "claptrap",
"pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your grandmother to
suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had last night
doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be used in a
report, so "bollocks" won't do!
I suppose "uninformed" might be too polite, although it could be
combined with something else - Professor Smith's uninformed comments
reveal that he (or she or...) isn't familiar with Professor Jones'
admirable introductory text on the subject "On Evolutionary Biology for
High School Students".
"So that's where you picked up your knowledge of biology!"
would be prof. Smith's most likely retort.
(general laughter, off in shame)

As I said to Athel, this is very dangerous ground.
Scientific discussions should not be conducted your way.
Even mild sarcasm should be avoided,
unless your deliberate aim is to start a feud,

Jan
Cheryl
2018-10-04 12:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Cheryl
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach evolutionary
biologists and people interested in the nature of life about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually knowing
anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger", "claptrap",
"pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your grandmother to
suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had last night
doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be used in a
report, so "bollocks" won't do!
I suppose "uninformed" might be too polite, although it could be
combined with something else - Professor Smith's uninformed comments
reveal that he (or she or...) isn't familiar with Professor Jones'
admirable introductory text on the subject "On Evolutionary Biology for
High School Students".
"So that's where you picked up your knowledge of biology!"
would be prof. Smith's most likely retort.
(general laughter, off in shame)
As I said to Athel, this is very dangerous ground.
Scientific discussions should not be conducted your way.
Even mild sarcasm should be avoided,
unless your deliberate aim is to start a feud,
There's nothing like an academic dispute to start a feud - unless it's a
family feud.

I guess Athel knows what such criticism is likely to provoke.
--
Cheryl
Sam Plusnet
2018-10-04 21:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to
be used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
I suppose "uninformed" might be too polite, although it could be
combined with something else - Professor Smith's uninformed comments
reveal that he (or she or...) isn't familiar with Professor Jones'
admirable introductory text on the subject "On Evolutionary Biology for
High School Students".
"This displays a tendency towards taradiddle."
--
Sam Plusnet
Richard Yates
2018-10-04 11:50:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:02:02 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
"biosplaining"
occam
2018-10-04 11:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:02:02 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
"biosplaining"
<smile>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-04 12:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:02:02 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
"biosplaining"
On the model of mansplaining, wouldn't that be biologists talking about
physics?
Jerry Friedman
2018-10-04 14:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Yates
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:02:02 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
"biosplaining"
Or physplaining.
--
Jerry Friedman
RHDraney
2018-10-04 13:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach evolutionary
biologists and people interested in the nature of life about
evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually knowing
anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger", "claptrap",
"pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your grandmother to
suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had last night
doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be used in a
report, so "bollocks" won't do!
I've heard of "smut" to describe complete gibberish (a cow-orker once
referred to the "smut generator" I had written to produce text along the
general lines of the "lorem ipsum dolor" variety to test a formatting
program I was working on)....

You might want to borrow a term from the past (ninety or so years ago,
to be a bit more precise): "banana oil"...the dubbers of one of the
early Godzilla movies chose it because it at least partly matched the
lip movements for "baka na" (En="foolish") but also perhaps because they
mistakenly thought it was still current in the 1950s....

You might be able to adapt an expression I came up with a few years
back: "you've obviously given this matter a great deal of whatever the
opposite of thought is"....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-10-04 14:37:16 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
You might be able to adapt an expression I came up with a few years
back: "you've obviously given this matter a great deal of whatever the
opposite of thought is"....r
Tempting, but in this case they obviously did give the matter a lot of
thought, but irrelevant thought, as Chargaff put it (quoting from
memory, as I can't find the original) "innocent of any knowledge of the
underlying chemistry" (though in this case it's biology, not chemistry).

A curious thing, though: there are three authors, but two of them,
including the corresponding author, can't remmber how to spell their
own names. I shan't specify, but let's suppose that their names are
Draney and Cooper and they spell them (20 times in one case, and 19
times in the other!) as Dranie and Cowper. How do I know? Because I
couldn't find any papers by Dranie but found a lot when I looked at his
email and decided it was probably Draney.
--
athel
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-04 16:37:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:02:02 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
"Bunk"?

"Bombast"?
Mack A. Damia
2018-10-04 16:40:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:37:59 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Richard Yates
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:02:02 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
"Bunk"?
"Bombast"?
"Specious"?
g***@gmail.com
2018-10-10 01:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm trying to remember a word that I thought of last night but I can't
recover today. It needs to describe the sort of thing physicists and
mathematicians write when they think they're going to teach
evolutionary biologists and people interested in the nature of life
about evolutionary biology and the nature of life without actually
knowing anything about these topics themselves. "Dunning-Kruger",
"claptrap", "pretentious", "balderdash", "bollocks", "teaching your
grandmother to suck eggs" etc. all spring to mind, but the word I had
last night doesn't. Any suggestions? It needs to be polite enough to be
used in a report, so "bollocks" won't do!
--
athel
flapdoodle?...g
Mark Brader
2018-10-10 08:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
flapdoodle?
That was an answer on the US "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" the other day.
The question was approximately "Which of the following is a word made up by
our writers and not a real word meaning nonsense?" Two of the answers were
"Codswallop" and "Flapdoodle", but I don't remember the others.

As I recall, the contestant picked "flapdoodle" and therefore lost out.
Post by g***@gmail.com
...g
You are R.H. Draney and I claim my five pounds.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Let me know if that is a convincing argument.
***@vex.net | If it is, I'll try it on myself. --Maria Conlon
RHDraney
2018-10-10 11:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by g***@gmail.com
flapdoodle?
That was an answer on the US "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" the other day.
The question was approximately "Which of the following is a word made up by
our writers and not a real word meaning nonsense?" Two of the answers were
"Codswallop" and "Flapdoodle", but I don't remember the others.
As I recall, the contestant picked "flapdoodle" and therefore lost out.
Post by g***@gmail.com
...g
You are R.H. Draney and I claim my five pounds.
Not me, just one of my acolytes....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-10 12:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Who the hell is "Gerald Smyth"?
Post by Mark Brader
Post by g***@gmail.com
flapdoodle?
That was an answer on the US "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" the other day.
The question was approximately "Which of the following is a word made up by
our writers and not a real word meaning nonsense?" Two of the answers were
"Codswallop" and "Flapdoodle", but I don't remember the others.
How is either of the above "not a real word"?
Post by Mark Brader
As I recall, the contestant picked "flapdoodle" and therefore lost out.
Post by g***@gmail.com
...g
You are R.H. Draney and I claim my five pounds.
Richard Tobin
2018-10-10 13:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mark Brader
Post by g***@gmail.com
flapdoodle?
That was an answer on the US "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" the other day.
The question was approximately "Which of the following is a word made up by
our writers and not a real word meaning nonsense?" Two of the answers were
"Codswallop" and "Flapdoodle", but I don't remember the others.
How is either of the above "not a real word"?
Those were *wrong* answers.

-- Richard
Loading...