I think he’s saying that his brain must be completely twisted to come up with a crazy idea like that, and yet, that’s exactly what happens, therein lying the humour.
The more convolutions in a brain, the greater the surface area and, therefore, the more neurons. To have a brain capable of those thoughts in the size of a walnut, it would have to be amazingly convoluted.
He’s saying his brain must be bigger than he thought. As noted above, it’s the surface area that seems to matter, It’s a joke, I think, on the fact that “convoluted” means complicated, and also literally means has a complex shape that provides more surface area in a given volume.
Strictly speaking, it wasn’t the falling object from space that killed most of the dinosaurs. It was the climate change that resulted from it that killed most of the dinosaurs (that were still left when it fell, 65 million years ago.)
I thought this one actually worked pretty well.
Walnuts are fairly convoluted, I suppose.
“It was the climate change that resulted from it that killed most of the dinosaurs (that were still left when it fell, 65 million years ago.)”
Technically speaking the dinosaur said his demise would be a *result* of a cataclysmic event from outer space; not the cataclysmic event itself.
“Technically speaking the dinosaur said his demise would be a *result* of a cataclysmic event”
Yes. Unless he was near the point of impact, he should have said his demise would be of a result of a cataclysmic event. Subtle, but meaningful difference.
By your logic, no one can ever be said to have died as a “result” of an earthquake. They die as as a result of the building falling on them. Or maybe you need to say they die as a result of the blood loss from the building falling in on them. Or maybe you need to say they die as a result of their brain ceasing to function after the blood loss. Except none of this is how “result” works in English.
As a result of my parents, I agree.
vulcan, surely you meant to say, as a result of the initial conditions of the universe?
“he should have said his demise would be of a result of a cataclysmic event.”
But he *DID* say that. He said exactly that. …. well, okay, he said it would *likely* be a result.
“Subtle, but meaningful difference.”
Subtle but meaningful difference between what? On one side we have you, and the dinosaur saying “result” on the other side we have … no-one … saying … what exactly…. Ice Cream and whipped nuts?
“By your logic, no one can ever be said to have died as a “result” of an earthquake.”
That’s silly, and partially true, at the same time. Neat trick. How is the fact that very few people die of earthquake related? Surely the dinosaur-killer meteor caused a resounding earthquake… are you positing that THAT’S what killed the dinosaurs?
“But he *DID* say that. He said exactly that.”
Look again, carefully this time. Otherwise, I agree to disagree with you about what “exactly” means.
“Look again, carefully this time. Otherwise, I agree to disagree with you about what “exactly” means.”
Dinosaur: “But I know my demise will likely be a result of a cataclysmic event from outer space”
You: “he should have said his demise would be of a result of a cataclysmic event”
Difference: Dinosuar: “But I know….. likely be …. from outer space”
OK, so we disagree about both the meanings of “exactly” AND “carefully” then.
Why don’t you just say what you are trying to say then instead of making snide comments? You can’t get much more careful then quoting verbatim. Obviously you think there is something in this three panels of benign comic that implies a misconception of the role of the asteroid in the extinction of the dinosaur. But for the frigging life of me I do not see it and I don’t see what relevance your comment that it was climate change and not impact that killed the dinosaurs has.
So… tell me. What was it that the cartoon dinosaur said that was so incorrect?
” You can’t get much more careful then quoting verbatim.”
Well, let’s see.
You take two very similar, but different, statements and insist that they are exactly the same.
Then you quote two passages, accurately, and your list of differences doesn’t list the difference you were told to find.
So, we disagree on what “exactly” means, and on what “careful(ly)” means.
“Obviously you think there is something in this three panels of benign comic that implies a misconception of the role of the asteroid in the extinction of the dinosaur.”
Add “Obvious(ly)”.
“I don’t see what relevance your comment that it was climate change and not impact that killed the dinosaurs has.”
Roughly none, by my estimation. But “obviously”, there is some…
” What was it that the cartoon dinosaur said that was so incorrect?”
Cartoon dinosaurs in B.C. can only say “Gronk!”
“Why don’t you just say what you are trying to say then instead of making snide comments?”
woozy, I’m not sure if this is you’re first interaction with James, but this is where every conversation with James ends up when you point out that something he said didn’t make any sense. It’s not going to go anywhere.
“It’s not going to go anywhere.”
… says the guy who invented deus Oz machina yesterday to explain his weird opinion.
Back to the comic for a sec…
Doesn’t BC have a religious bent to it? I’m not an avid follower of the strip, but I do remember some connection. If so, could this also be a dig at evolution and the scientifically determined age of the Earth?
Taking my initial premise that the dinosaur had come up with a crazy idea from his twisted brain and was ironically correct (not the scientifically accurate point that more surface area = potentially higher power of thought), could we go one step further and interpret this as the artist subtly suggesting that the whole idea of dinosaurs being wiped out by a cataclysmic event/results of a cataclysmic event is ridiculous because the Earth is only 6000 year old and all of those fossils were planted there by Satan to misdirect us?
Or am I beating a dead riojasaurus?
Perhaps this is the right time to point out that the “walnut-sized brain” is generally (1) attributed to Stegosaurus, and (2) not actually accurate when applied to Stegosaurus (Stegosaurs typically had lime-sized brains), and (3) even less likely to be accurate for a sauropod.
Of course, until recently, conventional thought would have been that sauropods would have all been extinct by the late Cretaceous anyway, but that seems to have changed.
Stan – Johnny Hart has been dead for over a decade. The strip hasn’t been Crazy Fundy Town since then, despite the fact that his replacements are his daughter and grandson. Its only real nods to religiosity come around the Christian holidays, and even there they’re not particularly more so than any other syndicated comic. They even zinged Ken Ham some time back, about the time the study which suggested Brontosaurus should be treated as a valid genus again was published. (Boiled down to ‘Brontosaurus is real, Ken Ham’s nonsense isn’t’.)
Ok, ok. I give up.
Thanks for the insight, Kamino. But also thanks to you, I’ve now got that disco hit stuck in my head…dunnn-dun-dun-Won’t you take me to..dunnn-dun-dun-Fundy Town!
Thanks to Kamino Neko for revealing a significant detail: I never knew that Mason and Hart were related. I guess I’m a little more comfortable with B.C. being a “legacy” strip rather than just a syndicated zombie.
I think legacy strips are WORSE than zombie strips in your new definition: at least with zombie strips you get fresh (deserving) talent, who can sometimes run with it and make the strip good (or at least less bad) (eg: Marciuliano and Sally Forth); legacy strips, the talent pool is much more limited, and just because there was talent in the family at one point doesn’t mean it breeds true, so you get, eg, the nursery school level crapola that is currently Hagar the Horrible.
Both are bad and stifling, but at least zombie strips offer some chance to the many deserving artists out there.
“I think legacy strips are WORSE than zombie strips in your new definition: at least with zombie strips you get fresh (deserving) talent, who can sometimes run with it and make the strip good (or at least less bad)”
I think worrying about the category a strip falls into has little to do with determining if it’s good or bad. I’m sure any fan of comic arts can point to strips where the original creator still works on it, but the quality has declined significantly since the strip’s peak. They could probably point to some zombie strips where the reruns are still great, and introducing them to new fans is awesome, and some zombie strips (or would-be zombie strips) that have not aged well and aren’t worth re-presenting. I think we could probably point to some strips that are out-of-print that should be dug up and the re-runs shown around a bit. And the same “some are good, and some are not good” characteristic for “legacy” strips.
Heck, we know that some creators have intentionally left some dailies out of their collections, because some days they were less “on” than other days, or some topics or comic approaches are no longer as funny as they used to be.
Let’s agree that good creators… whether original or not, or linked by blood or marriage to original creators or not… should get exposure, acclaim, and lucrative contracts. Let’s agree that mediocre creators should also get exposure and access for their fans, too, even if they’re coasting on past accomplishments, or even past accomplishments of others. I wish more cartoons and cartoonists were successful enough to sell collections. It’s so depressing to go to the bookstore (I could stop there) and see the comic selections… all the books for about a dozen strips are available on the shelves. Another dozen or so strips have a book or two. And a bunch of strips have no collections available at all. Yes, Mr. Watterson’s work was brilliant. But no, I don’t need another copy of “Yukon, Ho!” I’m walking out without buying anything because you don’t have anything new. Which, of course, tells your computer that cartoon collections don’t sell well, so don’t stock any.
““I think legacy strips are WORSE than zombie strips”
So …. Olivia James’ new Nancy! …. opinions?
“woozy, I’m not sure if this is you’re first interaction with James, but this is where every conversation with James ends up when you point out that something he said didn’t make any sense. It’s not going to go anywhere.”
Yeah… well, unfortunately James and I are probably more alike then dissimilar and have the egoism of most comic strip nerds I’m trying to get over these bad habits. … or at least recognize they *are* bad habits…
It took me a while to put my finger on it, then I realized James’s Nancy reminds me of a 1950s Mad magazine parody of Nancy. When comic parodies like Superman were their stock-in-trade.
Even the deliberately-ugly art fits.
Is a cataclysmic event like when you’re in Catholic school and the nun asks you questions like “Who is God?” and “What is God’s plan for you?”
I want to point out that people (in medieval times) use to routinely die from toothache or a broken bone, as the subsequent infection was just considered a result of the original injury. I think that the dinosaur’s phrasing is not quite correct (the event isn’t from outer space), but I’m not sure that the correct phrasing exists, and given that I’m fairly sure we all understood what he meant, I’d give it a by.
But the comic definitely comes across as the super-fundy kind. Unless there’s a new popular (or old holdout) theory for what caused the die-off, and it’s specifically the meteorite that’s being mocked?
“They even zinged Ken Ham some time back, about the time the study which suggested Brontosaurus should be treated as a valid genus again was published. (Boiled down to ‘Brontosaurus is real, Ken Ham’s nonsense isn’t’.)”
That’s if you chose to interpret it that way. I believe most interpreted it otherwise.
That some people on both sides of the issue apparently have never heard the phrase ‘eat your heart out’ doesn’t change that it means ‘you don’t get what the other guy got’. It’s not a valid interpretation of the strip that it’s supporting Ham.
Well, The meaning of the phrase “eat your heart out” is one thing. The meaning of the strip is another. The problem is no interpretation makes much sense.
Since Ken Hamm *does* believe (or so he claims) that dinosaurs and people coexisted and it is the “evolutionists” that didn’t, and that it’s supposed to be the kooky evolutionists that just can’t make up their minds about whether brontos existed or not, it seems to be “Ha, I live in a universe where everything Ken Hamm wants to prove is right here!”
It doesn’t really make much sense but I took to be a gentle ribbing and fairly supportive. I could be wrong but I also don’t think its clear that it’s all that belittling to him.
I don’t have references off hand but there were a few Easter strips that seemed a bit fundy. BUt I got the feeling it was almost “well, we’re doing the zombie B.C. strip and B.C. was supposed to be fundy so we’re going through the motions” rather than earnest fundy.
“the phrase ‘eat your heart out’ doesn’t change that it means ‘you don’t get what the other guy got’.”
But who is the “other guy”? Certainly not the science community. In this case “the other guy” is the B.C. universe. And what is it that the B.C. universe has that that Ken Hamm doesn’t? Certainly not facts, truth, and science. Instead it’s the evidence Hamm wants and needs.
Anyway, given B.C.’s history and the desire for the current cartoonist to attempt carrying on the legacy rather than to overhaul and undo it, I still stand by my interpretation.
Comics I Don't Understand 
I think he’s saying that his brain must be completely twisted to come up with a crazy idea like that, and yet, that’s exactly what happens, therein lying the humour.
The more convolutions in a brain, the greater the surface area and, therefore, the more neurons. To have a brain capable of those thoughts in the size of a walnut, it would have to be amazingly convoluted.
He’s saying his brain must be bigger than he thought. As noted above, it’s the surface area that seems to matter, It’s a joke, I think, on the fact that “convoluted” means complicated, and also literally means has a complex shape that provides more surface area in a given volume.
Strictly speaking, it wasn’t the falling object from space that killed most of the dinosaurs. It was the climate change that resulted from it that killed most of the dinosaurs (that were still left when it fell, 65 million years ago.)
I thought this one actually worked pretty well.
Walnuts are fairly convoluted, I suppose.
“It was the climate change that resulted from it that killed most of the dinosaurs (that were still left when it fell, 65 million years ago.)”
Technically speaking the dinosaur said his demise would be a *result* of a cataclysmic event from outer space; not the cataclysmic event itself.
“Technically speaking the dinosaur said his demise would be a *result* of a cataclysmic event”
Yes. Unless he was near the point of impact, he should have said his demise would be of a result of a cataclysmic event. Subtle, but meaningful difference.
By your logic, no one can ever be said to have died as a “result” of an earthquake. They die as as a result of the building falling on them. Or maybe you need to say they die as a result of the blood loss from the building falling in on them. Or maybe you need to say they die as a result of their brain ceasing to function after the blood loss. Except none of this is how “result” works in English.
As a result of my parents, I agree.
vulcan, surely you meant to say, as a result of the initial conditions of the universe?
“he should have said his demise would be of a result of a cataclysmic event.”
But he *DID* say that. He said exactly that. …. well, okay, he said it would *likely* be a result.
“Subtle, but meaningful difference.”
Subtle but meaningful difference between what? On one side we have you, and the dinosaur saying “result” on the other side we have … no-one … saying … what exactly…. Ice Cream and whipped nuts?
“By your logic, no one can ever be said to have died as a “result” of an earthquake.”
That’s silly, and partially true, at the same time. Neat trick. How is the fact that very few people die of earthquake related? Surely the dinosaur-killer meteor caused a resounding earthquake… are you positing that THAT’S what killed the dinosaurs?
“But he *DID* say that. He said exactly that.”
Look again, carefully this time. Otherwise, I agree to disagree with you about what “exactly” means.
“Look again, carefully this time. Otherwise, I agree to disagree with you about what “exactly” means.”
Dinosaur: “But I know my demise will likely be a result of a cataclysmic event from outer space”
You: “he should have said his demise would be of a result of a cataclysmic event”
Difference: Dinosuar: “But I know….. likely be …. from outer space”
OK, so we disagree about both the meanings of “exactly” AND “carefully” then.
Why don’t you just say what you are trying to say then instead of making snide comments? You can’t get much more careful then quoting verbatim. Obviously you think there is something in this three panels of benign comic that implies a misconception of the role of the asteroid in the extinction of the dinosaur. But for the frigging life of me I do not see it and I don’t see what relevance your comment that it was climate change and not impact that killed the dinosaurs has.
So… tell me. What was it that the cartoon dinosaur said that was so incorrect?
” You can’t get much more careful then quoting verbatim.”
Well, let’s see.
You take two very similar, but different, statements and insist that they are exactly the same.
Then you quote two passages, accurately, and your list of differences doesn’t list the difference you were told to find.
So, we disagree on what “exactly” means, and on what “careful(ly)” means.
“Obviously you think there is something in this three panels of benign comic that implies a misconception of the role of the asteroid in the extinction of the dinosaur.”
Add “Obvious(ly)”.
“I don’t see what relevance your comment that it was climate change and not impact that killed the dinosaurs has.”
Roughly none, by my estimation. But “obviously”, there is some…
” What was it that the cartoon dinosaur said that was so incorrect?”
Cartoon dinosaurs in B.C. can only say “Gronk!”
“Why don’t you just say what you are trying to say then instead of making snide comments?”
woozy, I’m not sure if this is you’re first interaction with James, but this is where every conversation with James ends up when you point out that something he said didn’t make any sense. It’s not going to go anywhere.
“It’s not going to go anywhere.”
… says the guy who invented deus Oz machina yesterday to explain his weird opinion.
Back to the comic for a sec…
Doesn’t BC have a religious bent to it? I’m not an avid follower of the strip, but I do remember some connection. If so, could this also be a dig at evolution and the scientifically determined age of the Earth?
Taking my initial premise that the dinosaur had come up with a crazy idea from his twisted brain and was ironically correct (not the scientifically accurate point that more surface area = potentially higher power of thought), could we go one step further and interpret this as the artist subtly suggesting that the whole idea of dinosaurs being wiped out by a cataclysmic event/results of a cataclysmic event is ridiculous because the Earth is only 6000 year old and all of those fossils were planted there by Satan to misdirect us?
Or am I beating a dead riojasaurus?
Perhaps this is the right time to point out that the “walnut-sized brain” is generally (1) attributed to Stegosaurus, and (2) not actually accurate when applied to Stegosaurus (Stegosaurs typically had lime-sized brains), and (3) even less likely to be accurate for a sauropod.
Of course, until recently, conventional thought would have been that sauropods would have all been extinct by the late Cretaceous anyway, but that seems to have changed.
Stan – Johnny Hart has been dead for over a decade. The strip hasn’t been Crazy Fundy Town since then, despite the fact that his replacements are his daughter and grandson. Its only real nods to religiosity come around the Christian holidays, and even there they’re not particularly more so than any other syndicated comic. They even zinged Ken Ham some time back, about the time the study which suggested Brontosaurus should be treated as a valid genus again was published. (Boiled down to ‘Brontosaurus is real, Ken Ham’s nonsense isn’t’.)
Ok, ok. I give up.
Thanks for the insight, Kamino. But also thanks to you, I’ve now got that disco hit stuck in my head…dunnn-dun-dun-Won’t you take me to..dunnn-dun-dun-Fundy Town!
Thanks to Kamino Neko for revealing a significant detail: I never knew that Mason and Hart were related. I guess I’m a little more comfortable with B.C. being a “legacy” strip rather than just a syndicated zombie.
I think legacy strips are WORSE than zombie strips in your new definition: at least with zombie strips you get fresh (deserving) talent, who can sometimes run with it and make the strip good (or at least less bad) (eg: Marciuliano and Sally Forth); legacy strips, the talent pool is much more limited, and just because there was talent in the family at one point doesn’t mean it breeds true, so you get, eg, the nursery school level crapola that is currently Hagar the Horrible.
Both are bad and stifling, but at least zombie strips offer some chance to the many deserving artists out there.
“I think legacy strips are WORSE than zombie strips in your new definition: at least with zombie strips you get fresh (deserving) talent, who can sometimes run with it and make the strip good (or at least less bad)”
I think worrying about the category a strip falls into has little to do with determining if it’s good or bad. I’m sure any fan of comic arts can point to strips where the original creator still works on it, but the quality has declined significantly since the strip’s peak. They could probably point to some zombie strips where the reruns are still great, and introducing them to new fans is awesome, and some zombie strips (or would-be zombie strips) that have not aged well and aren’t worth re-presenting. I think we could probably point to some strips that are out-of-print that should be dug up and the re-runs shown around a bit. And the same “some are good, and some are not good” characteristic for “legacy” strips.
Heck, we know that some creators have intentionally left some dailies out of their collections, because some days they were less “on” than other days, or some topics or comic approaches are no longer as funny as they used to be.
Let’s agree that good creators… whether original or not, or linked by blood or marriage to original creators or not… should get exposure, acclaim, and lucrative contracts. Let’s agree that mediocre creators should also get exposure and access for their fans, too, even if they’re coasting on past accomplishments, or even past accomplishments of others. I wish more cartoons and cartoonists were successful enough to sell collections. It’s so depressing to go to the bookstore (I could stop there) and see the comic selections… all the books for about a dozen strips are available on the shelves. Another dozen or so strips have a book or two. And a bunch of strips have no collections available at all. Yes, Mr. Watterson’s work was brilliant. But no, I don’t need another copy of “Yukon, Ho!” I’m walking out without buying anything because you don’t have anything new. Which, of course, tells your computer that cartoon collections don’t sell well, so don’t stock any.
““I think legacy strips are WORSE than zombie strips”
So …. Olivia James’ new Nancy! …. opinions?
“woozy, I’m not sure if this is you’re first interaction with James, but this is where every conversation with James ends up when you point out that something he said didn’t make any sense. It’s not going to go anywhere.”
Yeah… well, unfortunately James and I are probably more alike then dissimilar and have the egoism of most comic strip nerds I’m trying to get over these bad habits. … or at least recognize they *are* bad habits…
It took me a while to put my finger on it, then I realized James’s Nancy reminds me of a 1950s Mad magazine parody of Nancy. When comic parodies like Superman were their stock-in-trade.
Even the deliberately-ugly art fits.
Is a cataclysmic event like when you’re in Catholic school and the nun asks you questions like “Who is God?” and “What is God’s plan for you?”
I want to point out that people (in medieval times) use to routinely die from toothache or a broken bone, as the subsequent infection was just considered a result of the original injury. I think that the dinosaur’s phrasing is not quite correct (the event isn’t from outer space), but I’m not sure that the correct phrasing exists, and given that I’m fairly sure we all understood what he meant, I’d give it a by.
But the comic definitely comes across as the super-fundy kind. Unless there’s a new popular (or old holdout) theory for what caused the die-off, and it’s specifically the meteorite that’s being mocked?
“They even zinged Ken Ham some time back, about the time the study which suggested Brontosaurus should be treated as a valid genus again was published. (Boiled down to ‘Brontosaurus is real, Ken Ham’s nonsense isn’t’.)”
That’s if you chose to interpret it that way. I believe most interpreted it otherwise.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/23/now-we-know-who-still-reads-b-c/#more-23672
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/04/21/ken-ham-in-b-c-comic-strip/
That some people on both sides of the issue apparently have never heard the phrase ‘eat your heart out’ doesn’t change that it means ‘you don’t get what the other guy got’. It’s not a valid interpretation of the strip that it’s supporting Ham.
Well, The meaning of the phrase “eat your heart out” is one thing. The meaning of the strip is another. The problem is no interpretation makes much sense.
Since Ken Hamm *does* believe (or so he claims) that dinosaurs and people coexisted and it is the “evolutionists” that didn’t, and that it’s supposed to be the kooky evolutionists that just can’t make up their minds about whether brontos existed or not, it seems to be “Ha, I live in a universe where everything Ken Hamm wants to prove is right here!”
It doesn’t really make much sense but I took to be a gentle ribbing and fairly supportive. I could be wrong but I also don’t think its clear that it’s all that belittling to him.
I don’t have references off hand but there were a few Easter strips that seemed a bit fundy. BUt I got the feeling it was almost “well, we’re doing the zombie B.C. strip and B.C. was supposed to be fundy so we’re going through the motions” rather than earnest fundy.
“the phrase ‘eat your heart out’ doesn’t change that it means ‘you don’t get what the other guy got’.”
But who is the “other guy”? Certainly not the science community. In this case “the other guy” is the B.C. universe. And what is it that the B.C. universe has that that Ken Hamm doesn’t? Certainly not facts, truth, and science. Instead it’s the evidence Hamm wants and needs.
Anyway, given B.C.’s history and the desire for the current cartoonist to attempt carrying on the legacy rather than to overhaul and undo it, I still stand by my interpretation.