Excellent choice. 
quote:
El Imán Grande! got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I like the alwasy-crying building one myself.
You want to show them terrorists all americans are SISSIES, boy? 
[I kinda like this choice myself]
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Pirotess:
Thank god...a design that makes sense.
Oh yeah... having a 276ft+ needle on top of a building is always a good idea. 
I think the whole thing is a insult to US servicemen. [ 12-20-2003: Message edited by: Somthor ]
quote:
The space above reaching to 1,500 feet will contain a lacy structure of tension cables similar to those on the Brooklyn Bridge and wind-harvesting turbines to provide 20 percent of the building's energy, the architects said.
Awesome! 
quote:
Somthor stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I think the whole thing is a insult to US servicemen.
Oh please, try and explain this latest bit of brain drippings. And pay no mind to those us prepping our flamethrowers, the....uhhh....fireplace is giving us trouble. Yeah...fireplace.
quote:
Callalron Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Oh please, try and explain this latest bit of brain drippings. And pay no mind to those us prepping our flamethrowers, the....uhhh....fireplace is giving us trouble. Yeah...fireplace.
no comment, its a personal thought that wont be likly shared by anyone but me.
I've gotta say, I too was in favor of simply rebuilding the WTC. I don't think there's anything that better exemplifies the philosophy of the United States than that; we are hurt, we suffer, we rebuild. We move on.
To me, this seems superfluous. I want to remember the WTC the way it was.
But such is life.
as my english teacher said, "for christ's sake, it's like building a giant middle finger in New York"
quote:
Somthor wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
no comment, its a personal thought that wont be likly shared by anyone but me.
Egad! For once you're being smart and shutting the fuck up before you get in way over your head.
You can consider that your Christmas present to me.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Leopold, the Voice of Reason wrote:
as my english teacher said, "for christ's sake, it's like building a giant middle finger in New York"
That, too, is a tribute to the American spirit. We get hurt, we bomb the fuck out of people, then we give them the ol' bird.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
That, too, is a tribute to the American spirit. We get hurt, we bomb the fuck out of people, then we give them the ol' bird.
It's popularly belived that its more of a english tradition
Origin of The Finger
In 1415, Henry the V took his army of around 6,000 men across the English channel and into southern France. After cutting trees and preparing large pointed sticks, Henry marched his army northwest for 17 days and over 270 miles. With only one day's rest, the mighty force was hagard and exhausted by the time they reached the flat land between the forest of Agincourt.
The French army, consisting of 25,000 troops, 15,000 of which were mounted knights in armor, arrived on the evening of October 24. Their army was a mishmash of Frenchmen from all over the feudal country. It rained hard that night, and both armies were soaked to the bone my morning. Most French knights slept in the saddle so as not to sully their expensive and ornate armor.
On the morning of October 25, the French and British armies were salty and ready to fight. Henry moved his troups slowly up the 1/2 mile wide passage between the two forests of Agincourt. By 11 Am, the French commanders were still bickering over tactics and whether or not to charge, and the British were within 400 yards of the French.
Now what made the battle of Agincourt so interesting was the introduction of what could be considered the only good think to come out of Wales aside from sheep bestiality: the Welsh long bow. This weapon could dismount a rider at 300 yards, and with top notch arrows, could pierce armor at close range.
When Henry had his troups within bowshot of the French, he loosed the first of many volleys of arrows. The French, caught off guard, charged with half their forces. The Duke of Orlean barely made it 200 yards before his knights broke and ran under a hail of deadly wood and steel. Many of the knights sank into the mud and were smooshed as the horses and frightened soldiers trampled them into a fine paste.
Those knights that did make it to the British front lines were lept upon by unarmored soldiers carrying short swords, who plunged their blades into the joints of the French armor. All this came after a great number of horses were impaled upon the huge pointed sticks the British had placed in the ground in front of them.
At the end of the day, the French had lost some 10,000 men, and the British mourned only 500 dead. In one day, the Hundred Years War had turned and the long bow had successfully defeated the myth of the invincible knight in armor.
Shakespeare went on to glorify this battle, and the French, to vilify it. For the next 100 years, every lad over the age of 6 in Britain was required to be instructed in the firing and maintaining of the long bow.
In response to this, the French began cutting off the index and middle fingers of all British men caught in battle or on French land, thus removing the digits that allowed the firing of a bow. This is where the British tradition of waving two fingers at someone as an insult arose. Thusly, the very American middle fingered salute, or "the bird," is a descendant of this.
cant say if the above is correct(in fact I kinda recall hearing that this was a myth), but it sounds right and fits the popular belief. Incidently the bowmen were the deciding factor in that battle but not becuse of their bow's. Henry Only had as many as he did becuse he was broke and he could afford 2 or 3 bowmen for every armoured footsoldier/knight. In order to swell his ranks and look formital he simple recruited the cheaper bowmen.
Now the actual arrow they were useing was a soft steel to soft to penetrate the armour of the day at a distance (bobbin head) even if they did used a estimated 55k of them in the first few mins. what really happened is that the ground was muddy and the armoured feet of the footmen and knights stuck to the ground making movement near imposible. but the bowmen wore leather and cloth footgear and were highly mobile. During the battle the troops got all compressed into one mob and the BOwman simply walked around killing every frenchman they saw with their daggers and short swords. Noblemen would hesitate to kill another noble becuse they wanted to hold other members of their class for ransom. The bowmen simply wanted to not be killed and so didnt play by the same expected rules.
Bottom line is Henry got very lucky the question was really not how did the English win but more how did the French possibly manage to lose. Latter in a simular battle Henry managed to repeat the success of Azincourt.
quote:
Somthor had this to say about Optimus Prime:
It's popularly belived that its more of a english tradition.
It's also an American tradition to take the traditions of other countries and make them our own. 
quote:
El Imán Grande! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
It's also an American tradition to take the traditions of other countries and make them our own.
Spot on, chap. Now, time for tea and crumpets!
quote:
So quoth Somthor:
"Pluck You" theory of the bird
Popular theory that no historian or euro-anthropologist agrees with. Just because you find it on the internet doesn't make it true.
As for the WTC design, I'm just thankful they decided to do something that reclaims some of the lost business space. The logic behind "we lost a major symbol of financial and economic commerce, so tell you what let's voluntarily give up all of the space forever for what amounts to a graveyard and a miniature Central Park" always seemed highly dubious to me. I'm glad they're going to start USING the land again, as well as pay respects to those who died.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Somthor, do you really have to copy and paste the full text of something you're quoting in the post? We've got hyperlinks, why not use them?
Unless you insist on the use of hyperlinking I likly will continue to cut and paste. Its what I feel comfortable with.
quote:
Somthor stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Unless you insist on the use of hyperlinking I likly will continue to cut and paste. Its what I feel comfortable with.
I don't feel comfortable with you posting.
I'd be much more comfortable if you were gone.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Somthor said this:
This was disscussed before, somepeople cant get the link to work, or the link changers or the item may be changed or removed. a copy and paste job is there always.Unless you insist on the use of hyperlinking I likly will continue to cut and paste. Its what I feel comfortable with.
then cut and paste into quotations AND provide a hyperlink. so we know what the source is.
quote:
D enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
I don't feel comfortable with you posting.I'd be much more comfortable if you were gone.
I'm not here for your comfort sorry.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Somthor wrote:
It's popularly belived that its more of a english tradition
Urban Myth, and an old one. It's even come up on here a few times. I swear if you don't actually start providing sources besides copy pasting something you feel is relevant, gawd come on can you be any more idiotic... Do some research man. Pulling the story from the first source you find is rather lame.
For the record, all you did, and I know it's all you did, was put in the google search and copy paste the very first feasible responce you found. Which HAPPENS to be the very first hit a search for th Origin's of the Finger brings up. In fact, it's right here
Oh, and if you had bothered to search more you would have found various sites that said as much, of course here is one for you. Conicidentally, it was the SECOND link listed in the google search, after the one you copy pasted. This joke-legend started in 1996.
quote:
cant say if the above is correct(in fact I kinda recall hearing that this was a myth), but it sounds right and fits the popular belief.
what I said as much myself. Its posted there becuse its midly interesting to read, AND I kinda wanted to discuss the misunderstood importance of the Bowmen at azincourt. Which I briefly touched on after the cut paste.
incidently as I mentioned before your sig is blonde not red.
Not sure why it should bother you so much that I cut and paste when I have freely admitted it several times.
quote:
A sleep deprived Somthor stammered:
what I said as much myself. Its posted there becuse its midly interesting to read, AND I kinda wanted to discuss the misunderstood importance of the Bowmen at azincourt. Which I briefly touched on after the cut paste.incidently as I mentioned before your sig is blonde not red.
Not sure why it should bother you so much that I cut and paste when I have freely admitted it several times.
Because you have a tendancy to cut and paste things that are completely irelevant, and/or not really applying to anything. You have had a tendancy to completely omit parts of what it is you are quoting, and you have a tendancy to take whatever first results you search up to copy paste from, without having any real idea what it is you are posting about.
Not to mention you use it continuously to back up losing arguments such as in "Ohoho I find this in search, it supports my argument." whether it does or not. Which is usually not, or at least not in the way you would prefer. Then on top of that you continuously refuse to linkto, or even aknowledge the source you are providing, especially with your history of ommition. You tend to only copy paste the parts that support you. It's like those annoying TV commercials recomending products, or movies with the constant "Best of the year..." Taken totally out of context, when if the entire review or passage was read it has an ENTIRELY different meaning. It is more than just a little annoying, and probably the most annoying thing you do, among various other annoyances.
And I really fail to see how the hair color of my sig has much to do with anything.
quote:
From the book of Jajahotep, chapter 3, verse 16:
Oh yeah... having a 276ft+ needle on top of a building is always a good idea.
Uhm...lots of skyscrapers have huge spires on top
There we go, just setting some facts straight. [ 12-21-2003: Message edited by: Niklas ]
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:And I really fail to see how the hair color of my sig has much to do with anything.
Its simple your sig says lusty busty redheaded woodelf with sharp claws.
but your sig is a blonde now....I hate blondes...I like redheads...hoping youll change it back
quote:
Somthor had this to say about Pirotess:
Longbows were favored becuse a good bowman could fire 10x a min where a crossbow man might only get 3.
That has nothing to do with what I was saying
I never disagreed with the fact that longbows were plain better, I just added to that the fact that they also needed a lot more training! Hence the reason, through happy coincidence, that no one else in the world was using them on a large scale!
The point is that to a nobleman, the longbow is a peasants weapon. It was primarily used for hunting before this. They hadn't really considered the military value because they were never in any position to find out. When they did, they acted on it. Mostly because the english had no crossbows. If they knew how to make them, they probably would not have gone through the expense and pain of training almost the entire population to use them.
Fae is a d00d, not a ch1xx0r.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Niklas had this to say about Punky Brewster:
That has nothing to do with what I was saying
I never disagreed with the fact that longbows were plain better, I just added to that the fact that they also needed a lot more training! Hence the reason, through happy coincidence, that no one else in the world was using them on a large scale!
The point is that to a nobleman, the longbow is a peasants weapon. It was primarily used for hunting before this. They hadn't really considered the military value because they were never in any position to find out. When they did, they acted on it. Mostly because the english had no crossbows. If they knew how to make them, they probably would not have gone through the expense and pain of training almost the entire population to use them.
must of gotten that wrong somehow ...sorry
anyway the bowmen were not a factor in the battle becuse of thier bows. Its been proven that thier arrow heads were too soft to penetrate the armour on the battle feild. They were a factor becuse they were more mobile and had no problem killing noblemen.
quote:
Somthor had this to say about the Spice Girls:
must of gotten that wrong somehow ...sorryanyway the bowmen were not a factor in the battle becuse of thier bows. Its been proven that thier arrow heads were too soft to penetrate the armour on the battle feild. They were a factor becuse they were more mobile and had no problem killing noblemen.
When was that proven? Looking at all the most reputable sources of the time they were an absolute MENACE to knights. (I'm getting this from Froissart's Chronicles mostly by the way)
They wouldn't be so stupid as to put bows against knights if they couldn't do anything to heavy armour (this is not just about agincourt where they didn't really have any choice but to use archers). By that logic crossbows would suffer from the same fate and THEY were used extensively against knights and highly successfully.
Your point about the peasant ruthlessness towards nobles on the battlefield has more to do with later on when they ran out of arrows and stabbed the knights to death who had fallen to the men-at-arms rather than take them prisoners: a totally different issue.
The two weapons have vastly differant applications. The longbow was an incredible weapon for raining death upon infantry clad in chain and leather. The crossbow was the end of the armord knight as the crossbow was unaffected by the plate and was fatal from large distances.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Naimah's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
The longbow was an incredible weapon for raining death upon infantry clad in chain and leather. The crossbow was the end of the armord knight as the crossbow was unaffected by the plate and was fatal from large distances.
You are correct sir!
.. and I've used, and am trained, in both. They're fun. 
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Longbow was infamously good against plate-clad troops. It was other problems that made it an inefficient weapon.
Those other problems being the training and the EXPENSE of the training from nine years old.
Other than that, the longbow did not have any disadvantages, only advantages, compared to any other missile weapon of the time. In fact, they were probably superior to muskets if we'd been still using them at that time. (we weren't because it's SO much easier to simply pick up a gun. You only need to learn the skill, not build the muscles)
the arrows did very little except kill horses . it was the muddy terain that won the battle for the english that and the french noblemen completly ignoreing the battle plan [ 12-21-2003: Message edited by: Somthor ]
talks about the battle
