[2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

User avatar
Nathanyel
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:56 pm

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Nathanyel »

Lethal Interjection wrote:What most people don't know is that Lincolns beard was actually sentient, and did most of the presidential stuff. Lincoln himself just happened to have attached himself to it and rode it's coat-tails.
Is that why they call it "Grey Eminence"?

John

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by John »

Taft would have been a better example.

I'm British and I'd elect that charming fellow.

EL

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by EL »

hide yo gays! hide yo wife!

Durandal_1707

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Durandal_1707 »

John wrote:
Taft would have been a better example.

I'm British and I'd elect that charming fellow.
Rutherford B. Hayes.

(image stolen by ants)

Biggest beard of any US president. Not known for much else. :P

Durandal_1707

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Durandal_1707 »

Holy shit, I did not know that image was that big. It didn't look that large on Google Image Search.

Could someone please replace it with this one?

Image

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6514
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by smiley_cow »

You know the fact that you guys can only name leaders pre-television era is only proving my point.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

User avatar
Loraxxe
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Loraxxe »

It's more a matter of societal standards than TV. Our presidents have been clean-shaven since Wilson, and the couple of faces before (the rest of the 20th century) were limited to mustaches. You may be thinking of Nixon's notoriously bad appearance in the TV debates, owing to a 5-o'clock shadow. That's never been considered presidential.

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6514
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by smiley_cow »

Nixon's poor showing during the TV debates against Kennedy was about a lot more than just his five o'clock shadow. He had also just gotten back from the hospital and wasn't entirely recovered. Not to mention the fact that Kennedy had put a lot of work into his appearance and Nixon didn't. All these things were at play here.

Similarly facial hair isn't the only thing that's changed since television, but that's besides the point. And I'm sure that fashion and the times play a part in it too, but the fact remains that the reason politicians don't have facial hair today is for purely PR reasons. And you'll notice the minority of modern politicians, and almost no major ones do.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
Posts: 8835
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet
Contact:

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Edminster »

Loraxxe wrote:It's more a matter of societal standards than TV. Our presidents have been clean-shaven since Wilson, and the couple of faces before (the rest of the 20th century) were limited to mustaches. You may be thinking of Nixon's notoriously bad appearance in the TV debates, owing to a 5-o'clock shadow. That's never been considered presidential.
Interestingly, the people who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon utterly destroyed Kennedy.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud

User avatar
Apocalyptus
Not what you were expecting
Posts: 5283
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Apocalyptus »

Nathanyel wrote:Don't worry, it's not just the US.
Every caucasian seems to think: "Having a tan in summer is healthy and prevents sunburn - great, let's fry our hides in a solarium all year!" (ok that's not the only reason, but the first you might hear when you ask them about it)
But... no tan is healthy, as such. It's a sign that your skin has been damaged and is trying to protect itself from further damage.
Kimra wrote:Next they'll be denying us the right to say "We'll rape your arse if you don't come to this fucken country."

User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canadia!

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by DonRetrasado »

Well, no tan at all would mean that you're not getting any vitamin D (unless you're taking supplements), or you don't tan very easily or at all in which case you're more susceptible to sunburn and (possibly) skin damage/cancers.
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.
Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.

User avatar
Apocalyptus
Not what you were expecting
Posts: 5283
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Apocalyptus »

You can go in the sun before 9am or after 6pm to get your vitamin D, and it won't tend to give you a noticeable tan.
In Australia we have a huge incidence of skin cancer, so we're conditioned from an early age to be pretty careful about excessive unprotected sun exposure.
I guess it's whitey's fault for taking over a country obviously more suited to more dark skinned types.
Kimra wrote:Next they'll be denying us the right to say "We'll rape your arse if you don't come to this fucken country."

User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canadia!

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by DonRetrasado »

You should've picked Canadia instead.
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.
Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.

User avatar
Apocalyptus
Not what you were expecting
Posts: 5283
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Apocalyptus »

Nah. At least now I know I'm tough, with all the deadly animals and deadly sun rays and everything. You Canadians are just soft.
Kimra wrote:Next they'll be denying us the right to say "We'll rape your arse if you don't come to this fucken country."

User avatar
Sahan
"I promise you no penis jokes."
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: [2011-Sep-21] Technical Truths

Post by Sahan »

I was going to bring up the tan thing, but consequently forgot. Not healthy at all.

I realise there's a good chance I'm going to develop skin cancer actually. Without trying to draw the race card here, I never really paid much attention to the colour of my skin, but my mother is actually very pale for a Sri Lankan, and occasionally gets mistaken for being East-European or Spanish by strangers. In all my baby photos up until I was about 5, I was too, but then I started spending a lot of time outdoors. My tan line at my ankles is so contrasting it scares me a little. Long story short, I'look like a typical Sri Lankan wiht my complexion, but the reality is I've just developed a really dark tan since I moved to Australia.
Destructicus wrote: Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."

Since when is chemistry not a science?

Post Reply